[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 3 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H107-H118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, REPEALING THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH 
  CARE LAW ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 9, INSTRUCTING 
  CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO REPORT LEGISLATION REPLACING THE JOB-KILLING 
                HEALTH CARE LAW; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 26 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 26

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal 
     the job-killing health care law and health care-related 
     provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
     Act of 2010. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) seven 
     hours of debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their respective designees, 90 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 90 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
     and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
     Business; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 9) instructing certain 
     committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing 
     health care law. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules or their respective designees; (2) the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules, if offered by Representative Matheson of Utah or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House a resolution, if offered by the Majority Leader 
     or his designee, relating to the status of certain actions 
     taken by Members-elect. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except four minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their respective designees.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it is a great honor for me, for the first 
time in 4 years, to say, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and Rules Committee 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). 
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  0920

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 26 provides for a closed 
rule for consideration of H.R. 2 and self-executes an amendment by the 
majority leader, which is required under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010. This is routinely required and is similar to many 
provisions that have been self-executed since the enactment of 
statutory PAYGO.
  The resolution provides for 7 hours of debate on H.R. 2, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of six 
committees and the majority leader and minority leader.
  It also provides the minority a motion to recommit H.R. 2 with or 
without instructions.
  House Resolution 26 provides for consideration of H. Res. 9 under a 
structured rule that provides an hour of debate and makes in order an 
amendment, if offered by Representative Matheson of Utah. It also 
provides for one motion to recommit H. Res. 9 without instructions.
  Lastly, the rule provides for the consideration of a resolution if 
offered by the majority leader or his designee relating to the status 
of certain actions taken by Members-elect under a closed rule.
  Madam Speaker, it was just before midnight that my great new 
colleague

[[Page H108]]

Mr. Webster and I were here in this Chamber, and we filed this rule 
following a lengthy 12-hour hearing upstairs in the Rules Committee, 
and I have to say that there were many, many discussions that took 
place on a wide range of issues, but I think it's very important for us 
to note that there are those who argue that we should not be taking up 
this issue because of the fact that we should be focusing on job 
creation and economic growth.
  Well, Madam Speaker, we know that the overwhelming message that came 
from the American people is that we have to get our economy back on 
track, we have to create jobs, we have to make sure that those people 
who are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder 
are able to do just that. And that's why, when we look at a $2.7 
trillion expansion of the Federal Government, $2.7 trillion in new 
spending, we recognize something that is common sense, and that is, if 
you're going to expand the size and scope and reach of the Federal 
Government by that magnitude, it clearly is going to kill the effort to 
create jobs and get our economy back on track.
  And so that's why today, Madam Speaker, we are taking the first step 
in fulfilling a key promise that we have made to the American people. 
With this rule, we are setting in motion an effort to repeal President 
Obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real 
solutions, and I underscore that again because all the attention is 
focused on the fact that we are going to be trying to kill good 
provisions that are out there. Madam Speaker, we want to start with a 
clean slate. We are going to repeal President Obama's job-killing 
health care bill and replace it with real solutions.
  This rule takes two important steps. The first is to allow for 
consideration of a bill to hit the reset button, so to speak, on the 
very damaging legislation that was passed last year under the guise of 
health care reform. The second is a resolution directing each of the 
committees of jurisdiction to craft responsible, effective, and 
economically viable health care solutions.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution lays out very clearly what real reform 
looks like. Real reform will help, not hinder, in our goal towards 
creating jobs. Real reform will lower health care premiums by enhancing 
competition and patient choice. It will preserve the right of patients 
to keep their existing coverage if they so choose. It will ensure 
access to quality care for those suffering from preexisting conditions. 
It will implement meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can 
go to patients and doctors and not to trial lawyers. In short, it will 
increase access to health care for all Americans without compromising 
quality or hurting the very important small business sector of our 
Nation's economy.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying replace resolution which I've offered 
will begin a robust committee process to tackle the difficult but 
essential work of achieving these goals and crafting true reform for 
the American people. This will be a process in which each and every 
Member, Democrat and Republican alike, will have an opportunity to 
participate.
  Madam Speaker, as Speaker Boehner said the day before yesterday when 
he accepted the gavel, we are returning to regular order. Once again, 
our committees will be the laboratories, the centers of expertise that 
they were intended to be. Rank-and-file Members of both parties will 
play an active role in crafting legislation, scrutinizing proposals, 
offering amendments, participating in real debate. Critical legislation 
is not going to be written behind closed doors by a select few.
  Today's rule sets in motion a process that will be both transparent 
and collaborative, but we cannot get to that very important step 
without clearing the first hurdle, which is to undo the damage that has 
already been done.

  Now, we will hear people say why is it you're considering this under 
a closed rule. Madam Speaker, this was a clear promise that was made 
throughout last year leading up to the very important November 2 
election. Everyone acknowledges that elections have consequences. The 
commitment was made that we would have an up-or-down vote on repeal, 
and that's exactly what we are doing. We must repeal last year's bill 
before we proceed with replacement.
  Just as predicted, the so-called reform bill is having very real 
negative consequences for our economy and our job market. It is putting 
enormous burdens on job creators, particularly small businesses, at a 
time that is already one of the most difficult that we have faced, 
imposing significant new burdens and penalties while the unemployment 
rate remains above 9 percent. We got the news just a few minutes ago 
that it's at 9.3 percent. We're encouraged by that positive drop, but 
only 105,000 jobs were created, not the 150,000 jobs necessary to be 
created just to sustain the position that we are in right now. So we 
still are dealing with very, very serious economic challenges, and 
that's why we need to take a commonsense approach to, first, repeal 
this measure and then deal with solutions.
  Above all, I will say that the onerous, unworkable mandates that have 
been imposed are adding greater uncertainty, which is job creation's 
biggest enemy. Anyone who has spent any time talking with small 
business owners knows this to be the case. While the economic impact is 
already quite apparent, the fiscal consequences are looming down the 
road.
  While the bill's authors used a host of accounting gimmicks--and I'm 
going to get into those further, as I'm sure I'm going to be challenged 
on this, and I look forward to talking about the accounting gimmicks 
that have been utilized--while the authors used a host of accounting 
gimmicks, as I said, to mask the true costs of this measure, an honest 
and realistic assessment of the impact on the deficit shows a much 
clearer and, tragically, a far worse picture.
  The Budget Committee has demonstrated the real cost of the health 
care bill, as I said when I opened, is a staggering $2.7 trillion once 
it is fully implemented. It will add over $700 billion to our deficit 
in the first 10 years. The words ``reckless'' and ``unsustainable'' 
hardly begin to cover it. This bill is an economic and fiscal disaster 
of unprecedented proportions. The time to undo it before any more 
damage is done is quickly running out. Republicans promised the 
American people we would act swiftly and decisively, and that's exactly 
what we're doing.
  So my friends on the other side of the aisle have asked why there 
will be no amendments to the repeal bill. Frankly, there is nothing to 
amend. There is nothing to amend, Madam Speaker, to the repeal bill. 
Either we're going to wipe the slate clean and start fresh or we're 
not. Now, that's not to say there aren't some good provisions in this 
measure, but it is so onerous, nearly 3,000 pages, that we believe that 
the best way to do this is to wipe the slate clean, have an open and 
transparent process, and do everything we can to ensure that every 
single American has access to quality health care and health care 
insurance.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, once that slate is completely wiped clean, we will be ready for 
this open and collaborative process to develop the real solutions that 
we have talked about. That's what we promised the American people as we 
led up to last November 2, and that's exactly what we will deliver here 
today.
  Madam Speaker, first, we undo the damage; then we work together to 
implement real reform and real solutions. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and then, after we've gone through the 3-day layover 
requirement next week, which is in compliance with another promise that 
we made to the American people, I urge my colleagues to support the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 2, which our colleague, the new majority 
leader, Mr. Cantor, has offered, and H. Res. 9, which I have 
introduced, that calls for our committees to work in a bipartisan way 
to develop solutions to the challenges that we have out there in 
ensuring that every American has access to quality health care.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my gentleman friend, Mr. 
Dreier, yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  What a week it's been. Since being sworn in on Tuesday, the speed in 
which the Republican Party is working their promises has been dizzying. 
Speaking of the Republicans' first days

[[Page H109]]

in office, tea party spokesman Mark Meckler summed the week up nicely 
when he said, ``I actually don't think it would be possible to fall 
from grace any faster than this.''
  In November, the Republican leadership, led by Speaker Boehner, 
traveled to suburban Virginia and made a Pledge to America. Their 
constituents, including tea party patriots like Mr. Meckler, listened 
intently as the Republican Party pledged to be fiscally responsible and 
serve the will of the American people. On page 6 of the Republicans' 
Pledge to America, the party states: ``With commonsense exceptions for 
seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government 
spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 
billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the 
budget and pay down the debt.''
  The pledge was solemnly made by the Republican leadership despite 
being largely panned as a political stunt. Despite their promise to 
follow through on their pledge, on Tuesday, aides to the Republican 
majority said that the pledge to cut $100 billion was ``hypothetical.''
  Now today they are moving forward to do the exact opposite of the 
actions they pledged, as they introduce legislation to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Republican legislation will add 
$230 billion to the deficit by 2021. This extra $230 billion won't be 
spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children, 
or providing for the millions without jobs. Instead, the $230 billion 
will be added to our deficit in order to take health care benefits and 
protections from those who need them the most.
  For example, starting this year, the Affordable Health Care Act will 
begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. Under the law, Medicare 
beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for 50 
percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription drugs. Repeal this 
law, and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising 
drug costs alone. Those are the types of protections that I fight for 
today.
  Fiscally, Members of Congress face a $300 billion choice. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, we have two options: one, do we 
keep the Affordable Health Care Act and save $130 billion by 2021? Or, 
two, do we repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and add $230 billion 
to our deficit by 2021? That may be trouble for some; but for most of 
us, it is easy. For me, the answer is clear; and I assume to most 
Americans, it's clear as well.
  Because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the 
Republican leadership has taken to discrediting the Congressional 
Budget Office. Yet a quick bit of research will reveal that Republicans 
have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the Congressional 
Budget Office and have publicly supported the agency before. In fact, 
in 2009 Speaker Boehner repeatedly referred to the CBO as a nonpartisan 
institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the 
Affordable Care Act at the time. But now that the CBO's estimates are 
detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning 
the work.
  Republican Senator John Cornyn warned against dismissing the work of 
CBO just because it's inconvenient. Two years ago he said, ``I believe 
the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a 
difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here 
in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous 
unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter 
somewhat unhappy.
  ``But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the 
facts. Last week, I commended the director of the CBO, Dr. Doug 
Elmendorf, for saying that the CBO will 'never adjust our views to make 
people happy.' God bless Dr. Elmendorf for his integrity and commitment 
to telling the truth. We need to learn how to deal with the truth, not 
try to remake it or cover it up.''
  Now, I couldn't agree more with that. The deficit estimates provided 
by the CBO are the singular authoritative figures upon which we make 
all of our decisions and have for decades. Even if some don't like what 
the numbers tell us, we know that numbers don't lie.
  I will remind my colleagues that today's actions are not 
``hypothetical.'' We truly face a $300 billion choice. We can choose to 
provide invaluable benefits to millions of Americans while paying down 
our national deficit--remember that it will save $143 billion over 10 
years--or we can choose to end valuable health care protections for 
millions of Americans and add $230 billion to the Nation's deficit.
  Madam Speaker, today we are considering the first measure from the 
Rules Committee of this new Congress, and my Republican friends have 
already produced one for the record books. Let me give you some of the 
highlights. First of all, the resolution includes a completely closed 
process for two separate pieces of legislation. That means we get two 
closed rules in one. Maybe my Republican friends think they can save 
taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single 
resolution. I think that's what they meant by bringing efficiency to 
government.
  The first closed rule on the health care repeal bill does most of the 
heavy lifting. It blocks every single germane amendment submitted to 
the Rules Committee. Well, that's not exactly right, though. It 
actually slips in one change without allowing the House to vote on it. 
This special amendment, slipped in with the famous deem-and-pass 
maneuver, is very interesting. It allows the House to pretend that the 
repeal bill is free, even though the Budget Office says it will raise 
the deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a neat trick; and now we know 
the secret weapon for reducing the deficit: a blindfold.
  This closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal 
because this Republican bill has had no public hearings, no committee 
consideration, and is not paid for. The second closed rule in this two-
for-one package blocks all amendments to another resolution to correct 
a flaw in the swearing-in process. Apparently the vice chairman of the 
Rules Committee was conducting legislative business before he was 
actually a Member of Congress. Maybe amendments are not important here 
because no Member in the House has seen this resolution, since the rule 
allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is 
introduced.
  But if any of my colleagues are concerned about not having enough 
time to read this surprise resolution, don't worry: the rule allows the 
House to debate it for 4 full minutes, 4 minutes. Have you ever heard 
of a bill debated for 4 minutes? Fortunately, the rule generously gives 
the minority 2 of those 4 minutes, and I guess that qualifies as both 
efficiency and bipartisanship.
  Finally, the rule allows the House to consider a sweeping press 
release from the Republican leadership, a resolution to replace real 
patient protections with vague rhetoric.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the House Rules 
Committee. Our first action of the new Congress violates the promises 
that we heard from our Republican friends: no public hearings, no 
committee consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text 
no Member has read, 4 minutes of debate on an important constitutional 
issue, and so on.
  For all those Members who were sent to Washington, like I was, to 
repair our Nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the 
unemployed, help the millions of Americans in need, the decision should 
be simple. I encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of 
Republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents, and vote 
to keep the affordable health care law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that 
Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking people can be given the exact 
same set of facts and draw different conclusions. Well, I've just heard 
what my friend from Rochester has said. I will say that this is a great 
day for the people's House because we are going to, in fact, be 
implementing the commitment that was made to focus on getting our 
economy back on track.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our new colleague from North 
Charleston, South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a very hardworking and 
thoughtful member of the Rules Committee who was with us for 12 hours 
up until late last night.

[[Page H110]]

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I will say 
that it's truly an honor to serve on the Rules Committee. My first 
experience was a 12-hour experience last night and all day yesterday. 
What a wonderful opportunity to serve the American people.
  This is a great opportunity for all of us in America to kill the 
jobs-killing health care bill that is taking jobs away from the private 
sector. I simply want to make six quick points.
  The first point is that we all recognize that the cost of insurance 
is only going up, up and up. There is a misnomer that this bill somehow 
reduces the cost of insurance. It is simply categorically not true. 
Shifting who pays for the insurance, the health care cost, does not 
make the health care cost go down; it is simply going to continue to 
rise.
  Second point, when you design a bill that has tax increase after tax 
increase after tax increase and say that you are reducing the deficit 
by increasing taxes, it is inconsistent with the reality that the 
American people want from their Congress.
  Third, the individual mandate is simply unconstitutional. And if the 
individual mandate is not a part of the bill, if we don't force every 
single American to buy insurance, this Ponzi scheme simply doesn't 
work.
  Number four, bringing 10 years of revenue in and paying out 6 years 
of benefit and calling that equal, that's a farce.
  Number five, the lifetime benefits, challenging the lifetime 
benefits. We want everyone in America to have the access to health care 
without any question. The question we ask ourselves is, from an 
actuarial perspective, can we pay for it, a $2.7 trillion expansion, a 
new entitlement when we have a $76 trillion unfunded liability on the 
currents entitlement?
  We simply cannot continue to dig a hole and call ourselves 
compassionate. There is nothing compassionate about increasing our 
entitlements by jeopardizing the future entitlements of all Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Finally, the seventh point, we've heard 
lots of rhetoric about what we're doing to senior citizens and women. 
What we are facing is an opportunity to stop robbing future 
generations, to stop the unnecessary impact, the intergenerational 
cost. Without even taking into consideration the intergenerational 
costs, we consistently impact unborn Americans with legislation that 
passed under the former House.
  It is good to be in the House with a brand-new Speaker. And thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be a part of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the American people made it very clear 
in the last election that they want us to focus on one thing, jobs. But 
the new Republican majority has instead chosen to reopen an old 
ideological battle. I think that's a mistake.
  But the good news is that the American people will have the 
opportunity, right at the outset of this new Congress, to see the clear 
differences between Democrats and Republicans.
  Democrats believe that insurance companies should be prohibited from 
discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Republicans do 
not.
  Democrats believe that we should close the doughnut hole and reduce 
prescription drug prices for our seniors. Republicans do not.
  Democrats believe that young people should be allowed to remain on 
their parents' health insurance plan until the age of 26. Republicans 
do not.
  Democrats believe we should provide tax breaks to small businesses 
and subsidies to low-income Americans to help them pay for health 
insurance for their workers and their families. Republicans do not.
  And Democrats believe that we need to seriously address the budget 
deficit. Republicans do not, as the Congressional Budget Office made 
abundantly clear. The CBO told us yesterday that the bill to repeal 
health insurance reform would add $230 billion to the deficit over the 
next 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years.
  As far as I can tell, this is the most expensive one-page bill in 
American history: 114 words, that's $2 billion per word.
  And rather than address those budgetary facts, the new Republican 
majority has simply decided to ignore them, to cover their ears and 
pretend that the laws of arithmetic do not apply to them.
  In their first order of legislative business, the Republicans want to 
take health insurance reform and toss it in the trash. And how many 
hearings have they held on the impact of this repeal? Zero. How many 
mark-ups did they have? Zero. And, most shockingly, how many amendments 
will they consider in this bill? Zero.
  The new majority whip, Mr. McCarthy, said after the election last 
November, and I quote: ``When you look at the Pledge to America that 
the Republicans have laid out, there is a cultural change in there. 
There is something that opens up the floor that hasn't been done for 
quite some time, where bills won't be written in the back room, where 
the bills have to be laid out for 72 hours, where bills actually have 
an open rule, where people can bring up amendments on the floor.''
  So much for that. And instead of thoughtful, reasoned legislative 
language that addresses the health care issues, the Republicans' 
replace part of their repeal-and-replace strategy is just a list of 
happy-talk sound bites. It's no more than a press release.
  So again, Madam Speaker, I believe we should be focusing on jobs and 
the economy. And in the meantime, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule and the underlying, reckless bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we have 87 new Republicans in the House of 
Representatives. There's no more impressive group than the four who are 
serving with us on the House Rules Committee, among them former Sheriff 
Nugent. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brooksville, Florida.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, we were there last night in the Rules 
Committee for 12 hours hearing testimony from a number of individuals 
on the Democratic side and also on the Republican side.
  But let me talk to you about this. Over the past year, I've met with 
thousands of people from throughout Florida's Fifth Congressional 
District, whether they be small business owners, veterans, or Medicare 
recipients. They asked me to promise, promise to repeal ObamaCare. It's 
clear that the American people know more than our Democratic leadership 
in regards to what Americans want.
  ObamaCare eliminates millions of American jobs, cuts hundreds of 
millions of dollars from Medicare, raises taxes by almost $500 billion 
over 10 years for 6 years' worth of coverage.
  Everybody knows that the health care system is broken and that reform 
is needed. However, the unconstitutional, job-killing mandates of 
ObamaCare are not the answer.
  House Resolution 9 is an important step in Congress working with the 
American public to find real, meaningful solutions to our Nation's 
health care needs. This is the people's House, and we should be 
listening to the people.
  House Resolution 9 will allow us to foster economic growth, job 
creation, lower health care premiums and protect Medicare, and reform 
the medical malpractice system that is bankrupting America. For all 
these reasons, I'm grateful to my colleague from California, Mr. 
Dreier, for introducing House Resolution 9; and I'm proud to be an 
original cosponsor of that resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, the most expensive one-page bill in the history of 
Congress, and it costs the taxpayers a little over $200 billion the 
first 10 years alone, and over $1 trillion overall.
  Not only have the Republicans, as the first bill that we are doing a 
rule on and facing here on the floor, put forward the most expensive 
one-page bill in the history of Congress, but it is not paid for, Madam 
Speaker.
  In addition to not being paid for, they have waived many of the 
notice-for-transparency requirements, the

[[Page H111]]

regular order that they sought to establish with regard to the way that 
this Congress is run.
  Madam Speaker, there were many good ideas and good amendments that 
were brought forward by Members of both parties yesterday during our 
session of the Rules Committee. I want to talk about a few in 
particular.
  One, my colleague from Michigan, Gary Peters, brought a proposal that 
would have made sure that this biggest one-page expenditure in the 
history of Congress did not raise taxes on small businesses. 
Unfortunately, that amendment is not made in order under this rule, and 
therefore H.R. 2 will be raising taxes on small businesses across the 
country that are now receiving tax credits for providing health care 
for their employees.

                              {time}  0950

  There was also a lot of discussion, and I think it is important that 
the American people know, with regard to people with preexisting 
conditions. Now, we all want to do something for people with 
preexisting conditions. There was talk yesterday, and, in fact, when we 
are talking about H.R. 9, there might be discussion in the future with 
regard to agreeing on high-risk pools for people with preexisting 
conditions. But what this body is being asked to do today and next week 
is effectively replace something that works for people with preexisting 
conditions, namely, eliminating pricing discriminations, with some 
vague assurance on paper that perhaps some day some committee, some 
chairman might consider, we ask them kindly to consider something that 
will do something for people with preexisting conditions. Well, Madam 
Speaker, that is simply not enough for the people that have the 
preexisting conditions today, for those who will in the future.
  If we want to talk about improving upon health care, there is ample 
room to do it, but not by eliminating any protections that exist.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very privileged to yield 
3 minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the Republican 
conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I rise from my 
heart with a deep sense of gratitude to the American people to urge my 
colleagues in both parties to join us as we keep our promise to the 
American people and next week vote to repeal their government takeover 
of health care lock, stock, and barrel.
  I know Democrats said at the time that they had made history. I said 
at the time I thought we broke with history. We broke with some of our 
finest traditions: Limited government, personal responsibility, and, 
most profoundly, the consent of the governed.
  On a late Sunday night in March, the last majority had their say. On 
a Tuesday in November, the American people had their say. And that 
brings us to this moment.
  It is remarkable, though, to hear Members in the minority explaining 
their opposition to this bill. A year ago, only in Washington, D.C., 
could you say you were going to spend trillions of dollars and save 
people money. And this morning, only in Washington, D.C., could you say 
that repealing a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care is 
actually going to cost money.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENCE. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I wonder if he might repeat that line. I think he said 
that only in Washington, D.C., can there be an interpretation that 
cutting $2.7 trillion in spending is actually going to end up costing 
the American people.
  Is that what the gentleman was saying? I thank my friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, yes. It must be mystifying for people looking in 
this morning to hear about the most expensive one-page bill in American 
history.
  I say again. Only in Washington, D.C., could a Congress vote to 
repeal a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care and the 
minority says it costs the American people money.
  Now, I know they don't like us to call it that, but let me explain. 
When you mandate that every American buy government-approved insurance 
whether they want it or need it or not, when you create a government-
run plan paid for with job-killing tax increases, when you provide 
public funding for abortion for the first time in American history, 
that is a government takeover of health care that violates the 
principles, the ideals, and the values of millions of Americans, and 
the American people know it.
  Now, look. After we repeal Obamacare next week, we can start over 
with commonsense reforms that will focus on lowering the cost of health 
insurance without growing the size of government.
  Republicans will waste no time in bringing greater freedoms to the 
American people to purchase health insurance the way they buy life 
insurance, the way they buy car insurance. We will deal with 
responsible litigation reform. We will even use the savings to cover 
preexisting conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this rule. Join us as 
we keep our promise to the American people and repeal their government 
takeover of health care once and for all.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is not a dispute between 
Republicans and Democrats about the $1.3 trillion. CBO, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, is saying that.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the bill 
before us. The bill would increase the national deficit by $230 
billion, increase costs to individuals, families, and small business 
owners, and deny the American public the consumer protections they have 
been seeking for years.
  Repeal of the health care law would also mean that young adults would 
not be able to stay on their parents' plan. This is something that 
would have devastating effects on constituents of mine such as 
Elizabeth. Shortly after graduating college, she was dropped from her 
parents' plan and soon developed a severe thyroid condition. As a 
result, she had to purchase her own individual insurance plan, which 
proved to be a severe financial hardship for her and her parents. 
Thankfully, she was able to re-enroll under her parents' plan as of 
January 1 because of this health reform bill.
  Repeal would also mean that senior citizens in Sacramento would not 
see any relief from the Medicare part B doughnut hole. The health 
reform bill would close the doughnut hole, which is critical to seniors 
in my district. One such senior, Gary, regularly pays over $2,000 a 
month for his prescription drugs. Repeal would mean that Gary and the 
thousands of other seniors in my district would see no relief from this 
part D doughnut hole. This is unacceptable.
  Madam Speaker, a vote against this rule and against this bill is a 
vote to protect the American public from unfair insurance company 
practices, to provide relief to young and old alike, and to stay on the 
path to a fiscally responsible future. I urge my colleagues to vote 
down this rule and vote against the underlying legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to a hard-working member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which 
will be one of those committees, when we pass H. Res. 9, that will be 
dealing with ensuring that every single American has access to quality 
health insurance, our friend from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, today we do begin a very important 
process, and it is a solid first step. And I stand to support this rule 
and to support repeal of this law, because we have on the books a law 
that doesn't improve the quality of health care. It will not reduce the 
cost of health care, and it is going to add billions to the exploding 
national debt.
  We have listened to the American people. They are smart, and they 
know that this law is unworkable. It won't deliver on the promises that 
they made, and the American people voted in overwhelming numbers to 
repeal it

[[Page H112]]

and replace it. That is the action that we are going to take.
  Congress cannot wait any longer to get this irresponsible law out of 
our doctors' offices, out of our lives, and off the books.
  We in Tennessee have lived through the experiment of government-run 
health care called TennCare. Tennessee could not afford it, and the 
American people know that this Nation cannot afford a TennCare-type 
program on a national level.
  I support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan, our ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. This is what the Republicans are after, what their repeal 
would mean: It would take away from millions of Americans coverage for 
kids with preexisting conditions, coverage for young adults under 26. 
Recommended preventive care would be taken away. It would take away 
lower drug costs for seniors. And this is what the Republican repeal 
would do. It would give back to insurance companies unreasonable 
premium increases, unjust policy terminations, rescisions. It would 
take away this. It would give back profits and CEO salaries to 
insurance companies, not health care benefits.

                              {time}  1000

  It would give back annual and lifetime limits on benefits. It gives 
back to insurance companies discrimination ability against women.
  These are concrete reasons to vote ``no'' on this repeal, a 
misfortune for the United States of America.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another 
hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, our friend 
from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments on the other side of 
the aisle in regard to the $230 billion cost, and on our side of the 
aisle, of course, only in America can something actually cost $1.15 
trillion and eliminating it then all of a sudden costs $230 billion. 
But, yes, Ms. Slaughter, only in America, only in this Congress, 
numbers do lie.
  Let me just say that what we have been talking about on this side of 
the aisle, of course, is the voice of the American people.
  You know, it was about 3,000 years ago that a little shepherd boy 
walked into that valley of death looking up at all of those Philistines 
and that 9-foot giant Goliath from Gath. He had that coat of mail, he 
had the sword, he had the shield, he had the javelin. And what did 
little David have? He had a little pouch and a handful of stones. But 
he hit that giant right between the eyes, brought him to his knees, and 
then cut off the head of the snake.
  That pouch and those little pebbles represent the voice of the 
American people. That is what we have on this side of the aisle. That 
is why we are going to pass H. Res. 9 and we are going to pass H.R. 2 
next week, and we are going to deliver our promise to the American 
people to eliminate, to repeal ObamaCare.
  The American people spoke loudly. They don't like this bill. The 
Democratic majority in the Senate and the President have one last 
chance to make amends. I think they will do it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. This debate is about health care versus don't care.
  The Democrats' health care law lowers prescription drug costs, helps 
middle class families pay for health coverage for their sick children, 
and expands health care for 32 million more Americans, reducing the 
deficit by $143 billion. The Democrats' health care law helps grandma 
afford her prescription drugs.
  The Republicans don't care about grandma. They want to take back the 
drug benefits in the new law. GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party; 
now it stands for ``grandma's out of prescriptions.'' The Republicans' 
``don't care'' repeal shows they don't care about sick children with 
medical bills pushing families into bankruptcy, that they don't care 
about grandma and grandpa who need help paying for prescription drugs.
  Vote down this rule so that we can help grandma, sick children, and 
middle class families struggling to pay for health care.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this point I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to another hardworking member of this freshman class, my new friend 
from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
in support of the underlying legislation, the repealing of the job-
killing health care act.
  Ten months ago, President Obama and his allies in the Democrat-
controlled House and Senate committed legislative malpractice when they 
jammed through the Congress and into law a Washington takeover of 
health care. They did so despite the overwhelming opposition of the 
American people. Since its enactment into law, what was already a 
unpopular law has only continued to become more unpopular.
  There is no doubt that we need to reform health care in America. 
However, it is not done by assaulting individual liberties guaranteed 
in our Constitution, bankrupting our children and grandchildren, and 
putting Washington bureaucrats in the personal relationships between 
our doctors and our patients.
  Repealing the health care bill will also help encourage job growth to 
get our economy back on track. Our economy is not suffering from a 
capital crisis; it is suffering from a confidence crisis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CANSECO. Policies enacted in Washington, like the health care 
bill, have injected uncertainty into our economy that has eroded the 
confidence of Americans to start new businesses or expand current ones 
to create jobs.
  The American people have made it clear they want the health care law 
repealed and replaced with commonsense alternatives that will lower the 
cost of health care while also increasing quality and access. After 
meeting and speaking with thousands of Texans in the 23rd District over 
the past year, this is their message.
  Repealing and replacing the health care bill is one of the promises 
made to the American people in the Pledge to America. Today, we are 
making good on that promise as we begin the work of repealing the 
health care law and replacing it to ensure that the American people can 
get the health care that they need, when they need it, and at a price 
they can afford--without the Federal Government coming between them and 
their doctor.
  I support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, this is nothing but a gag rule. I and so 
many of my colleagues on the Democratic side went up to the Rules 
Committee yesterday and asked for amendments, and they were almost all 
excluded from this rule.
  The Republican chairman of the committee says there is transparency. 
He says that there is an opportunity for participation. He can say it 
as many times as he wants, but it is simply not true.
  He also said that this was a commitment to the American people. There 
is no commitment to the American people here. The only commitment is to 
the insurance companies. They are the only ones that are going to gain 
from repeal of this very important legislation, because they want to 
increase premiums, and they want to institute discriminatory practices 
again against women, a woman perhaps who has breast cancer and a 
preexisting condition and can't get insurance, or bring back those 
lifetime caps, or bring back those annual caps where people lose their 
insurance if they have had a serious operation and they try to go back 
again and they don't have insurance, or perhaps the child who is up to 
26 and who also will not be able to get on their parents' insurance 
policy again.
  Let me tell you here, the only one who benefits is the insurance 
company, not the American people.

[[Page H113]]

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend on the other 
side of the aisle how many speakers she has remaining?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we have got every minute taken. I am 
not sure everybody is going to show up.
  Mr. DREIER. I am told there are 11 minutes remaining on your side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and our leader on health 
care.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, if you listen to the Republicans today, 
they are telling us don't bother them with the facts. Their minds are 
made up.
  They are unaware of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office 
says that this is going to create 4 million jobs in the health care 
legislation. They don't tell us that the same Congressional Budget 
Office says that passage of H.R. 2 is going to increase the deficit by 
$140 billion. And they also are telling us the American people want 
this repeal. They don't.
  They understand what this means. It means that no longer are people 
going to get the protections that the health insurance bill gives. No 
more protection, if the Republicans get their way, against preexisting 
conditions and rescisions denying people health care because of 
something that happened to them down the road before. No longer will 
Americans be protected against frivolous and improper behavior by the 
insurance companies.
  This is a bad rule. It is bottomed not on facts, but on fiction. And 
if this body is to legislate and legislate well, we have to have the 
facts, not fiction, not deceit, not misleading statements by our 
Republican colleagues.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

                              {time}  1010

  Mr. DOGGETT. If you're hit by a truck this afternoon or your child 
contracts a dread disease, your future ought not to depend on the fine 
print in an insurance policy you didn't have anything to do with 
writing. No insurance monopoly should stand between you and your 
doctor.
  Unfortunately, the Republican Party has become little more than an 
arm of the insurance monopolies. They ask for a vote to further empower 
those monopolies, and we ask for a vote to empower American families. A 
vote to repeal is a vote to maintain health care costs as the leading 
cause of bankruptcy and credit card debt in this country. It is a vote 
to require seniors to pay more, more for prescription drugs, and more 
for diabetes and cancer screenings.
  We can stand with American families today or we can kneel to the 
insurance monopolies. The choice is clear--let's vote for American 
families.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont, former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
  I say, Madam Speaker, to my Republican colleagues, you campaigned 
effectively, you beat us good, you ran on the agenda of defeating 
health care and repealing it. Now you're doing it. Own it. Admit what 
it is you are doing.
  This is not a campaign. We're playing with fire. We're taking away 
health care benefits that make a real difference to our families.
  Number one, this bill will raise the deficit by $230 billion. Fiscal 
responsibility, out the window.
  Second, things that matter to families; their kids, starting out 
getting a $10 an hour job without health care. They have it now on 
their parent policies. We're taking it away.
  Preexisting conditions. You have cancer and you want to buy 
insurance, you can. Repeal, you can't. You lose it.
  Lifetime caps. If you are with cancer or diabetes and you need that 
insurance, you lose it before you can go without it.
  And preventive care we're taking it away from seniors who are trying 
to take care of themselves, get those free mammograms, keep the cost of 
health care down. You are taking it away.
  Admit it. Own it. State it proudly. It's what you campaigned on. It's 
what you're doing. But don't try to sugar-coat what this is about.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, the issue facing the country is jobs. 
Instead of repealing health care, we should bring up a jobs bill like 
the China currency reform. And so I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Today I speak on behalf of the millions of Americans who are 
currently benefiting from the law and yet have been shut out of the 
legislative process. The way in which this legislation has been brought 
to this floor is a travesty. Before the Affordable Care Act became law, 
in the House alone we held nearly 80 hearings on the merits of reform. 
But this bill to repeal this lifesaving law has not had a single 
hearing. Not one amendment has been allowed for an up or down vote here 
today. That's probably because the majority knows hearings would show 
that the law is already a real success.
  While we may disagree on the policy, we should be able to agree on 
the process. And this, my friends, is not the way to move legislation 
in the House of Representatives. We've all agreed upon that. That is 
why I urge my colleagues--especially the new Members who ran on the 
promise of ensuring an open Congress--to vote against this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
  There is a lot of talk here on the floor about job killers. Actually 
this bill, the affordable health care bill, creates some 400,000 jobs. 
The repeal of it is actually a killer of human beings. Some 40,000 
Americans die every year for lack of health insurance. That's the 
reality. Repeal this bill and you're going to find more Americans 
dying. Also, you're doing away, with this repeal of the Affordable 
Health Care Act, of the patients' bill of rights. I was the insurance 
commissioner in California. I know exactly what the insurance companies 
will do if this repeal goes forward. They will continue to rescind 
policies. They will continue to deny coverage. They will continue to 
make sure that those 23-year-old children that have graduated from 
college will no longer be able to be on their parents' policies.
  This repeal is perhaps the worst thing you can do to Americans in 
their health care. Besides that, you will significantly increase the 
deficit, by $230 billion.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record 
the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment 
of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created 1.1 million 
private sector jobs.

                Update on Job Growth Under Health Reform

       Today's jobs report exposes the fatal flaw in the 
     Republicans' argument that health reform is ``job killing.''
       Since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the 
     economy has created more than 1.1 million private-sector 
     jobs.
       That's an average of 123,000 jobs created per month in the 
     private sector since the enactment of health reform, compared 
     to an average of 7,000 jobs lost per month in the private 
     sector during the Bush Administration, when our health care 
     system was in a downward spiral and insurers had free rein to 
     raise premiums on families and small businesses by double 
     digits and deny or limit coverage with no accountability or 
     recourse.
       12 Straight Months of Job Growth in the Private Sector More 
     Than 1.3 Million Private-Sector Jobs Created in 2010 
     Unemployment Rate Drops From 9.8% to 9.4%
       113,000 private-sector jobs were created in December, the 
     12th straight month of private-sector job growth.
       In all, more than 1.3 million private-sector jobs were 
     created in 2010. That's a dramatic

[[Page H114]]

     turnaround from the situation President Obama inherited in 
     early 2009, when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.
       The November private-sector jobs number was revised up 
     29,000 to 79,000 private-sector jobs created, and the October 
     number was revised up 33,000 to 193,000 private-sector jobs 
     created.
       Government employment declined slightly in November; as a 
     result, net payroll growth for the public and private sector 
     combined was 103,000 in December.
       The unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in December.

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this rule that we're taking up today instead of focusing 
on jobs.
  The new majority in the House ran on the platform of fiscal 
responsibility. This bill flies in the face of that promise by adding 
$230 billion in the short run and over $1 trillion in the long run to 
our deficit.
  As important, under repeal, the Medicare trust fund will become 
insolvent in 2017. That's just 6 years away. Pushing Medicare over the 
cliff by passing this repeal breaks a sacred trust with our Nation's 
seniors to help provide health care coverage in retirement after a 
lifetime of working and paying taxes.
  That is why I went to Rules Committee last night with two colleagues 
and offered an amendment to guarantee that repeal will not go forward 
unless it is certified that that repeal will not shorten the life of 
the Medicare trust fund. Sadly, the Rules Committee didn't allow us to 
help protect Americas's seniors. They didn't allow that amendment, we 
will not be able to vote for that amendment on the floor, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, then, in light of that, I am very happy to 
yield 1 minute to a physician, another hardworking member of this 
freshman class, the gentlewoman from Mount Kisco, New York (Ms. 
Hayworth).
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, as a physician, I understand the 
profound importance of the goals of the health care bill passed last 
year--to assure that all Americans have affordable, portable health 
insurance, providing access to good medical care.
  I also understand the disruptions that this law is already causing to 
our economy--the predictable side effects of legislative bad medicine, 
and the reason we must repeal and replace it. The bill we will be 
considering is in no way merely symbolic. It represents the true will 
of the American people, the majority of whom have stated time after 
time to this day that they reject this law. The House's vote to repeal 
is the first step towards assuring that all Americans will have the 
quality, choice, and innovation in health care that they expect and 
deserve. We need to proceed expeditiously, according to the rule on 
which we vote today, with the understanding that we are taking 
meaningful and crucial action.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
  The previous speaker is right. This is not symbolic. It's real. In 
fact, the Republicans are going to allow the return of the worst abuses 
of the health insurance industry. Preexisting condition exclusions. 
Taking away your policy when you get sick. Lifetime and annual caps. 
Throwing your kids off your policies. The Republican repeal of this 
bill would enable all those things for their, very, very generous 
benefactors in the insurance industry.
  I haven't had a single constituent--and I know you haven't--beg you 
to bring back these abuses. Is that what you're doing? Is that what 
they want? You could take steps right now in fact to rein in this 
industry, and 400 people in this House voted for it last year. Let's 
take away their unfair exemption from antitrust laws so they can't 
collude to drive up prices, they can't collude to take away your 
insurance, they can't collude to throw your kids off; and all the other 
anticompetitive things that industry does.
  I offered that amendment to Rules last night. The Republicans, 
despite the chairman of the committee and others having voted for it 
last year, would not allow it. This is an insurance industry bill plain 
and simple.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to another hardworking physician, a member of this new freshman class, 
the gentleman from south Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to support the rule and 
to support the repeal of the Obama health care law. As a physician who 
has practiced medicine in rural Tennessee under the onerous TennCare 
law, I know firsthand that this law does not work. It restricts access 
to health care, it increases the cost, and it does not deliver on the 
promises the minority made when they passed the law.
  The American people have had their say. They do not want this bill. 
They want it repealed, and they want to see health care reform that 
will increase access and lower costs.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee for allowing me to speak.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule on H.R. 2, the Patients' 
Rights Repeal Act. Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said 
that this repeal would cost $230 billion in additional Federal debt. 
It's amazing, this is our first major piece of legislation and the 
Republicans are already adding to the national debt.
  The issue facing our country is jobs. Instead of repealing health 
care, we should be bringing up a jobs bill like the China currency 
reform. Where is that bill on the floor with the new majority?
  Let me tell you what this bill will do. At least in Texas, we will 
see tragedy happen. 161,000 young adults will lose their insurance 
coverage through their parents' health care plan--that's only in 
Texas--and 2.8 million Texans who have Medicare coverage will be forced 
to pay copays now for preventative services like mammograms and 
colonoscopies. Medicare will no longer pay for the annual visit of 
nearly 2.8 million Texans--and many more Americans for Medicare--and 
128,682 Texans on Medicare will receive higher prescription costs if 
this law is repealed.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday Congressional Budget Office said ``over the 
2012-2021 period, the repeal of health care reform on federal deficits 
. . . will cost $230 billion.''
  Texas and the rest of the nation cannot afford to add an additional 
$230 billion in deficit spending.
  The issue facing the country is jobs. Instead of repealing health 
care, we should bring up a jobs bill like China currency reform.
  The Republicans came into office promising to reduce federal spending 
and reduce the deficit, but their first act in the Majority is to try 
to pass a Rule that would exempt H.R. 2 for statutory PAYGO.
  In addition to adding billions in dollars to the deficit, 
consideration of H.R. 2 would jeopardize the current and future health 
care benefits of my constituents. The negative effects repealing the 
Affordable Care Act will have on Texas and all Americans.
  Up to 161,000 young adults would lose their insurance coverage 
through their parents' health plans. Nearly 11.8 million residents of 
Texas with private insurance coverage would suddenly find themselves 
vulnerable again to having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance 
companies will spend on their health care.
  Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's 
coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick 
because of a simple mistake on an application. This would leave more 
than 1.1 million people in Texas at risk of losing their insurance.
  More than 1.1 million residents of Texas would not know if they are 
receiving value for their health insurance premium dollars, as insurers 
in state would no longer be required to spend at least 80 to 85 percent 
of premium dollars on health care rather than CEO salaries, bonuses, 
and corporate profits.
  Nearly 2.8 million seniors in Texas who have Medicare coverage would 
be forced to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive services, 
like mammograms and colonoscopies.
  Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so nearly 
2.8 million seniors in Texas who have Medicare coverage would have to 
pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting check-ups regularly.

[[Page H115]]

  A total of 128,682 Texans on Medicare would see significantly higher 
prescription drug costs. In Texas, Medicare beneficiaries received a 
one-time, tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in 
the ``donut hole'' coverage gap in 2010. Medicare beneficiaries who 
fall into the ``donut hole'' in 2011 will be eligible for 50 percent 
discounts on covered brand name prescription drugs.
  Madam Speaker, when Texans and all Americans will soon be finally 
free from worrying that affordable coverage will not be available to 
them and their families when they need it the most, repealing the 
Affordable Care Act would be devastating.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule to consider H.R. 
2.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of Government Oversight and 
Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I rise in fervent opposition to this rule. Despite 
ardent promises from Republicans that all bills would be considered 
under regular order, this resolution has neither been debated nor voted 
on by a single committee of jurisdiction.
  Additionally, the recently passed Republican rules package requires 
that all legislation be fully paid for--and yet the Republican 
leadership has already publicly declared that they have no intention of 
paying for what is estimated to be a $230 billion increase in the 
deficit that the repeal of health reform would create by 2021, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Worse than the Republicans' already broken promises are what this 
rule and the underlying resolution would do to children, to seniors, 
and to all Americans who are suffering from illnesses.
  I strongly oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to another great new Member, the gentlewoman from Archie, Missouri 
(Mrs. Hartzler), my home State.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Members on the opposite side of the aisle said we need 
to be passing a jobs bill. Well, this is a jobs bill, because I can 
testify, as a person who's newly elected and been on the campaign trail 
for a while, that in the Fourth District we had small businesses that 
are not hiring and not expanding because of the health care bill. We 
have got to repeal this so that we can create more jobs.
  I am a small business owner myself, and I can tell you, since this 
has passed, that health insurance premiums have skyrocketed in 
anticipation of the mandate that is going to be forced on them. So, if 
we want to get serious about creating jobs, we need to start by 
repealing this.
  This is also a bill to rein in the runaway spending that is 
devastating our country, and it's mortgaging our children's future. As 
a mother, that's important to me. This bill put another $1.2 trillion 
of debt on our country. We cannot afford that.
  Lastly, this is a freedom bill. The people in my district do not want 
the government telling them they have to buy a private product and then 
mandating what is in that product. That is unconstitutional. By passing 
this last year, you have taken away my freedom, the freedom of the 
people of the Fourth District, and the freedom of this country. We 
deserve better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. The issue facing this country is jobs. Instead of rushing 
to the aid of the insurance industry to reinstate their right to engage 
in egregious discriminatory practices of discriminating against adults 
and children alike based on preexisting conditions, instead of allowing 
the doughnut hole to continue to bear down on our seniors, we should be 
passing real jobs legislation.
  Urgently, we should be bringing up jobs bills that will make a real 
difference, like putting an end to China's currency manipulation. We've 
heard the numbers: 2.4 million jobs lost across the country, 92,000 
jobs lost in Ohio, and 5,700 jobs have been lost in my congressional 
district due to China's deliberate and abusive trade policies. We can 
do something about this issue today, and we should. It makes a real 
difference.
  I hope that our friends across the aisle will stand with American 
businesses and American workers and put an end to the abusive practice 
of China's currency manipulation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Madam Speaker, after Democrats took a shellacking on November 2, I 
concluded then and now that it was because of the fragile economy and 
because they thought just perhaps Republicans would have some new ideas 
about fiscal discipline.
  Well here's what we get. We get a Republican majority that is more 
concerned about political theatre and messaging to the Tea Party than 
they are in creating jobs and reducing the deficit. We need a Jobs 
bill. Now.
  The CBO on yesterday told us what we already suspected. Repeal will 
increase, yes increase, the deficit by $230 billion. It will result in 
32 million Americans losing their health insurance. And what eclipsed 
this whole episode was a Republican Rule that exempts Repeal from Pay-
as-you-Go rules.
  Shame on the Republican majority. Shame on you.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. There are 15 million Americans unemployed as we meet 
this morning. They do not want us to play politics with health care; 
they want us to work together to create jobs.
  There is a job killer loose in America. The job killer is unfair 
trade practices that force the outsourcing of our jobs.
  There is a proposal that has broad agreement between Republicans and 
Democrats to bring fair trade back to America. If we defeat the 
previous question, we will move to amend the rule to make in order the 
Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which simply says this: As the 
Chinese have been slamming the door shut on our workers and products, 
we've been opening our shelves in American department stores. No more 
of that. No more outsourcing of jobs. No more unfair trade practices. A 
fair and level playing field for American workers.
  Let's work together to create jobs and stop the politics and the 
waste of time of health care. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel.
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. I rise in opposition to this amendment. It seems that the 
openness the new majority promised us lasted half a day. And the more 
things change, the more they remain the same. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we are able to defeat the previous 
question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill (H.R. 
2378) from the last Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, 
which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for American 
workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, what is the current whole number of 
Members of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The whole number of the House is 435.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WEINER. Can the Speaker certify that all 435 Members have been 
correctly and duly sworn and have taken the oath of office as required 
under the Constitution?

[[Page H116]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is under the information and 
belief that all 435 Members have been sworn.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this is the first act of the 112th Congress, and I 
have to say that I am particularly gratified that we have had six new 
Members of this 87-Member Republican class participate in this debate 
because, Madam Speaker, they have come here with a very, very strong, 
powerful message from the American people.
  That message is that we have to make sure that we create jobs and get 
our economy back on track.
  Even though we have gotten this positive news of the reduction of the 
unemployment rate from 9.8 to 9.3 percent this morning, tragically last 
month only 105,000 new jobs were created. That is not enough to sustain 
our economy. You have to create at least 150,000 jobs just to be 
treading water.
  We know that the American people are continuing to suffer, and the 
message that has come from the American people through these 87 new 
Members is that we have to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs, 
getting our economy back on track, and reducing the size and scope and 
reach of the Federal Government.
  My friend Mr. Pence and I had an exchange in which we said only in 
Washington, D.C., can saying that cutting a $2.7 trillion increase--
eliminating that, scrapping that--will, in fact, cost money. It's 
absolutely crazy, but that is what they are arguing; and through their 
sleight of hand, with the Congressional Budget Office, they are going 
to continue to claim that it will somehow save money.
  Madam Speaker, we are doing what we told the American people we would 
do. It is very simple. Beginning last year, we said we would have a 
very clean up-or-down vote:
  Should we maintain this $2.7 trillion expansion with government 
mandates and increased taxes, or should we repeal it? That's what we 
are going to be voting on after the 3-day layover next week; and, Madam 
Speaker, are we, in fact, committing ourselves to doing everything that 
we possibly can to ensure that every single American has access to 
quality, affordable health care and health insurance?
  That's what the resolution that I have introduced, H. Res. 9, will 
do. It will direct the six committees of jurisdiction to begin 
immediately working on ways in which we can drive the cost of health 
insurance down.
  I personally believe that we need to allow for the purchase of 
insurance across State lines, which is now forbidden under the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act. I believe that it is very important for us to 
have associated health plans so that small businesses can come together 
and get lower rates. We need to have pooling to deal with preexisting 
conditions. We need to expand medical savings accounts. And yes, Madam 
Speaker, the fifth thing we need to do is we need to have meaningful 
lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go towards doctors and not 
trial lawyers.
  These are the kinds of things that these new Members are telling us 
need to be done, and that is exactly what passage of this rule will 
make happen.
  Now, Madam Speaker, let me say I urge support of this rule, and I 
urge support of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express opposition to the 
rule and the irresponsible move by the Republicans to dismantle health 
care reform for millions of Americans. There are a multitude of reasons 
why I am opposing this rule and why it is an affront to the democratic 
process, but I will focus on three today.
  First, this rule shuts out any attempt to change the Republican 
proposal. After promising a transparent process and an honest attempt 
to engage Members across the aisle, Republicans went back on their word 
and closed the door on any meaningful conversation. Yesterday's Rules 
Committee meeting serves as an example of the extreme tactics being 
used by the majority to shut out opposition. Thirty Democratic 
amendments were submitted for consideration, including several that I 
co-sponsored, aimed at preserving key consumer protections in the 
health care reform law. One of the most notable provisions includes 
prohibiting insurance companies from rescinding an individual's health 
coverage due to illness or imposing annual or lifetime limits. The 
Democratic amendments would also preserve access to primary care and 
the medical loss ratio (MLR) provision. This provision requires 
insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to spend 
at least 80 percent of the premiums on medical care and quality 
improvement activities. Finally, the amendments would prohibit repeal 
if it increases cost sharing or otherwise reduces access to preventive 
health benefits such as mammograms, colonoscopies, and diabetes 
screenings. All 30 Democratic amendments were rejected by the 
Republicans, leaving no room for dialogue or reform.
  My second concern is that Republicans are trying to turn back the 
clock on the Democratic reforms that have allowed millions of Americans 
to access affordable quality health care across the country. In my 
state alone, preliminary estimates suggest that 161,000 young people 
under the age of 26 will become ineligible to remain on their parents' 
health insurance, 2.8 million Medicare patients will pay more for 
preventative services, and 128,682 Medicare recipients will pay higher 
prescription costs. Moreover, Republicans are ignoring warnings from 
the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that repealing the 
Affordable Care Act will add $230 billion over the next 10 years to the 
already massive budget deficit.
  Third and most importantly, there is an incredible amount of business 
to be done, and the American people expect that the Republicans will 
get to work with Democrats and the President to create jobs and build 
on the progress of the past two years. Instead of obsessing over the 
repeal of the health care law, Republicans should focus on revitalizing 
communities like mine on the border by passing bills that strengthen 
infrastructure and security. I urge Republicans to take a look at my 
PORTS Act as an example of bi-partisan legislation that accomplishes 
both of these goals and will actually benefit the American people. In 
short, we need to work together to get it done.
  I hope that this rule is not the beginning of a session marked by 
continual efforts to thwart debate and stifle opposition.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2, the Repealing 
the Jobs-Killing Health Care Law Act.
  Instead of focusing on job creation and other efforts to grow our 
economy again, House Republicans have set the tone for the beginning of 
the 112th Congress by attempting to ram through a repeal of the most 
comprehensive health care reform legislation in our history.
  They want to ``repeal and replace'' the Affordable Care Act, but have 
yet to share with us and the American people what exactly they want to 
replace it with.
  ``Just trust us,'' they say. Well, their idea of trust is voting to 
strip middle class, working poor, and other vulnerable Americans of 
their access to affordable, quality health care now, and worrying about 
the costs later.
  What they call a ``job-killing health care law'' actually creates 
much-needed jobs and cuts the deficit.
  In fact, according to a preliminary estimate from Director Elmendorf 
of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act will explode federal budget deficits by $230 
billion through 2021 and by billions more in the following decade.
  The bottom line is that Republicans would rather help themselves by 
taking away over 32 million Americans' health care than help put our 
nation back to work.
  Simply put, a vote in favor of ``repeal and replace'' is a vote to:
  Take coverage away from young adults looking for jobs, children with 
pre-existing conditions, and low-income families;
  Impose lifetime limits on coverage;
  Allow insurance companies to spend more on CEO salaries, bonuses, and 
corporate profits than health care; and
  Increase preventive care and prescription drug costs for seniors 
under Medicare.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked all those in 
attendance whether their health insurance premiums over the past 20 
years had gone down. Not one single person, and that would include my 
Republican colleagues, raised their hands. Need I say more?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 
26, a rule to provide for debate on H.R. 2, the Republican attempt to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  In September 2010, the Republican Party offered a ``Pledge to 
America.'' They outlined their promises to create a more transparent 
and open Congress; to bring bills to the floor under regular order, 
following consideration by committee; to allow a bipartisan debate 
under

[[Page H117]]

open rules allowing any member to come forward and have an up or down 
vote on amendments to major pieces of legislation; and to reject bills 
that increase the deficit. Most importantly, Republicans promised to 
work in the best interest of American families.
  Just two days after Republicans have taken over the majority in the 
House, we are back to business as usual under Republican control. This 
hypocritical rule violates each promise made by Republicans during 
their campaign and in the rules they adopted for the 112th Congress.
  The rule brings to the floor a bill that has never been considered in 
committee but will repeal a law that was discussed and debated for over 
a year in committees in both houses of Congress. That is not the 
regular order Republicans promised.
  Democrats brought 30 amendments to the House Rules Committee, seeking 
an up or down vote to preserve provisions of the Affordable Care Act 
that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for those with 
pre-existing conditions, from canceling insurance coverage for young 
adults up to age 26, from dropping individuals when they get sick, from 
maintaining the Medicare Part D Coverage gap. Not one amendment was 
made in order. That is not the open and bipartisan debate Republicans 
promised.
  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill this 
rule brings to the floor will increase the deficit by $230 billion over 
10 years, a cost Republicans conveniently excused themselves from ever 
having to pay in their rules for the 112th Congress. That is not the 
fiscal responsibility Republicans promised.
  The rule will bring to the floor a bill that takes away health 
insurance from 32 million people, raises health insurance premiums for 
millions of American families, increases out-of-pocket expenses and 
prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries, and puts control 
over health care decisions back in the hands of insurance companies. 
That is not the best interest of America's families and seniors 
Republicans promised.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose this rule that violates the 
promises made by Republicans and the promises we each made to represent 
the best interest of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 182, not voting 16, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               YEAS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Austria
     Barton (TX)
     Black
     Boswell
     Carson (IN)
     Cicilline
     Cleaver
     Davis (IL)
     Grijalva
     Honda
     Jones
     Long
     Maloney
     Pearce
     Smith (NE)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1056

  Messrs. RUSH, COURTNEY, HOLT, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. GENE 
GREEN of Texas, CONYERS, and PASCRELL changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam. Speaker, on rollcall No. 9 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 181, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H118]]

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Fitzpatrick
     Sessions
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Austria
     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Davis (IL)
     Dold
     Garamendi
     Hayworth
     Honda
     Jones
     Maloney
     Pearce
     Roybal-Allard
     Smith (NE)

                              {time}  1104

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________