[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2624-H2632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1217, REPEALING PREVENTION AND 
                           PUBLIC HEALTH FUND

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 219

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1217) to repeal the Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 219 provides for a 
structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1217, which repeals 
the Prevention and Public Health Fund and rescinds any unobligated 
funds.
  Republicans are on the floor today to fulfill part of our Pledge to 
America that we would cut spending and we would repeal the Democrats' 
health care bill passed a year ago. On January 19, this House passed 
H.R. 2 to repeal ObamaCare completely. The ruling liberal Democrats in 
the Senate, however, have so far refused to consider H.R. 2, but House 
Republicans remain undeterred. We will repeal ObamaCare piece by piece 
if that is what it takes.
  Because the liberal elites knew their government takeover of health 
care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the ballot 
box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayer spending in the 
law itself to protect their favorite programs.
  Let me take a moment to explain the difference between 
``discretionary'' and ``mandatory'' government spending
  First, it's important to remember that the Federal Government does 
not have any money of its own, as it has only what it takes in taxes 
from hardworking Americans or money that it borrows from foreign 
creditors and our future generations. We are currently borrowing 43 
cents of every dollar that the Federal Government spends.
  Discretionary spending is appropriated by Congress annually and 
therefore subject to congressional oversight and review. Discretionary 
spending allows Congress to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by 
not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. However, what is 
called mandatory spending funds programs for people who meet certain 
criteria and occurs irrespective of congressional appropriations and 
must be spent whether we have the money or not.
  The most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security, which operate on autopilot and have not 
been subject to congressional oversight from year-to-year as funds 
automatically stream from the Treasury to anyone who qualifies, that 
is, meets the criteria for a particular benefit.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 1217, would repeal a portion of 
mandatory ObamaCare spending and eliminate a slush fund established for 
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. This slush fund, 
known as the Prevention and Public Health Fund, will automatically 
receive $1 billion when fiscal year 2012 begins in October of this year 
with automatic increases every year until it reaches $2 billion 
annually in fiscal year 2015.
  However, there's a very important distinction between this funding 
and that for Medicare and Social Security in that this funding does not 
state eligibility criteria.
  The liberal elites in Washington think they know how to spend the 
taxpayers' money better than individual taxpayers and gives Secretary 
Sebelius $2 billion a year until Congress acts to repeal her authority 
to spend without accountability.
  Republicans are rejecting this slush fund by considering this bill 
which would repeal the fund and take back any money that has not 
already been spent this year. The slush fund is not subject to the 
annual appropriations process and therefore would not be subject to 
yearly congressional oversight.
  The money will be made available to the Secretary regardless of how 
she chooses to spend it and whether or not the programs being funded 
are actually effective.
  Again, this is not like Medicare and Social Security. There are no 
criteria for the spending of this money.
  It's important to point out that this bill does not cut any specific 
program, because the slush fund is used by the Secretary to increase 
spending above congressionally appropriated levels for whatever program 
the Secretary chooses.
  My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this money is being 
used to train primary care physicians, to prevent obesity, and to 
encourage healthy lifestyles. What they won't tell you is that they 
have absolutely no idea how the money is being used, because they 
abdicated the authority of Congress to an unelected bureaucrat.
  The simple truth is that the money is just as likely to be spent on 
elective abortion as it is for any other purpose.
  In the Democrats' dissenting views from the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee report, they say without mandatory spending for this slush 
fund, the programs will not be adequately funded. Well, Madam Speaker, 
that's what the whole process for appropriations is all about. If the 
programs need more money, it's up to them to come and justify that.

[[Page H2625]]

  However, they sang a different tune when liberal House Democrats 
rammed through a government takeover of health care in November of 
2009. They created this slush fund but made it subject to the regular 
appropriations process. That meant it was subject to yearly 
congressional oversight and direction for how the money would be spent.

                              {time}  1340

  But when the ruling liberal Democrats in the Senate sent over their 
version of the health care bill, which became law, the slush fund had 
been made mandatory. The liberal elites claim they put in a safeguard 
because part of the section creating this slush fund states that 
Congress has the authority to direct how this funding is spent. Well, 
as any high school junior civics student could tell you, Congress 
always has the authority to direct, redirect, repeal, or increase 
funding. Congress can always pass a new law to change the direction of 
any funding stream. That's our job as legislators. The need to state 
explicitly that we have the authority to direct spending in a slush 
fund is pointless.
  The simple truth is that we have a spending crisis in this town in 
large part due to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. 
Instead of working to address our unsustainable spending habits, the 
ruling Democrats refused even to offer a budget resolution last year or 
pass a single appropriations bill. The liberal elites failed to lead 
despite having unchecked control of all levers of power in Washington.
  I brought a chart with me today to help illustrate the fact that 
mandatory spending is out of control in Washington. Madam Speaker, let 
me show you that because of mandatory spending being on autopilot, by 
the year 2050 the mandatory spending will absorb all revenue coming 
into the Federal Government, all tax revenue coming into the Federal 
Government. That simply is unsustainable. We cannot operate our country 
when we let three programs take up all of the money that comes into the 
Federal Government. Something has to be done. And yet the Democrats 
want to add another program to this, which would speed up this process. 
We don't need that.
  As Washington liberals ignored the growing autopilot spending crisis, 
adding more unaccountable mandatory spending in the hands of unelected 
bureaucrats, House Republicans are now working hard to protect the 
future for our children and grandchildren by restoring congressional 
oversight of spending.
  Now, I am sure many Americans are wondering how a slush fund with a 
clever title would be spent and why it must be put on autopilot. Let me 
give you an example. Pitt County, in my home State of North Carolina, 
received funding from this fund to fix prices at convenience stores so 
that healthy foods would be less expensive and, therefore, supposedly 
more attractive to the consumer. In addition, the Pitt County Health 
Department now plans to use some of this money to put up signs 
indicating the location of public parks, bike lanes, and alternate 
transportation.
  Although I am certainly not opposed to parks or healthy eating 
habits, it seems quite clear that the Founders of this country did not 
intend the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in 
Washington, DC, to use taxpayer money to subsidize granola bars or 
purchase signs for bike lanes or parks.
  The Federal Government has no business paying for local and community 
initiatives such as these, especially when we are borrowing 43 cents of 
every dollar the Federal Government spends to pay for it. The new House 
Republican majority is ready to lead this country out of our debt 
crisis. And it starts with voting for this rule and the underlying 
bill, which will save taxpayers $16 billion.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously, this measure amends the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act and seeks to repeal those provisions that establish and 
appropriate funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It also 
rescinds any unobligated balance appropriated to the fund.
  As I listened to my friend from North Carolina, two things jumped out 
at me immediately. One is her usage and the ruling Republican majority 
House Members' usage of the term for the Affordable Health Care Act as 
ObamaCare. I said earlier in the Rules Committee I guess I could call 
it HastingsCare, because I supported--as did many Members of this 
Congress who are still here and some who are not, on both sides of the 
aisle--health care provisions for America long before any of us knew 
Barack Obama's name.
  When it's used the way that it is, it's in some manner attempting to 
be demeaning of the President. He does not bear the sole responsibility 
for the Affordable Health Care Act. I would assume some of that 
responsibility. And what I would say is he and many others in this body 
did not go far enough in that we did not establish universal health 
care for all Americans in this country.
  The other thing that jumps out on this particular matter, calling it 
a slush fund and then allowing that it is going to be in the hands of 
an unelected bureaucrat. It puts us in a strange position in the House 
of Representatives when my colleagues with the ruling majority of the 
House of Representatives have sought and been successful in eliminating 
the opportunities for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to 
seek to have appropriations earmarked for respective undertakings in 
their congressional districts. Rather, they would eliminate those 
earmarks and--guess what?--put it in the hands of unelected 
bureaucrats.
  So I find it inconsistent to make the argument on one hand, and then 
on the other hand say, Oh, it's okay for the unelected bureaucrats to 
have some opportunities to spend our money. Quite frankly, I take 
umbrage with that. I think I can do a better job defining a need for a 
treatment plant in Belle Glade than can an unelected bureaucrat.
  The burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart 
disease, hypertension, and stroke, present a significant public health 
challenge to all of our communities and our Nation as a whole. In my 
home State of Florida, over 10 million cases of seven chronic 
diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental 
disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported early on in this 
decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment, and resulting 
in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic cost.
  Simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. 
Tens of millions of Americans are suffering from health conditions that 
could possibly be preventible. This is further exacerbated by the 
continuing rise of health care costs. Despite the fact that chronic 
diseases are responsible for seven out of 10 deaths among Americans 
each year and that they account for 75 percent of our Nation's health 
care spending, less than 3 percent of our health care spending goes to 
preventive health care services and health promotion.
  As you know, the Affordable Care Act, or the HastingsCare Act, or the 
Hastings and ObamaCare Act, or the Hastings and Obama and DemocratCare 
Act created the Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to assist 
State and community efforts in preventing illness and promoting health. 
The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents an unprecedented 
investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease, detect 
it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. It aims to 
transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating 
illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of 
preventive medicine.
  Through the Community Transformation Grants program, for example, the 
fund empowers State and local governments and partners to implement 
community prevention interventions that help reduce chronic disease and 
health care disparities.

                              {time}  1350

  In fact, the fund is already being used in all 50 of our States and 
the District of Columbia to prevent smoking, increase physical 
activity, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, increase immunizations, train 
the Nation's public health

[[Page H2626]]

workforce, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and help control the obesity 
epidemic in our country.
  In addition, the Prevention and Public Health Fund provides funding 
for States to help develop a health insurance exchange by 2014. 
Footnote there: We should have had a public option, where consumers 
will have access to a new market of more affordable, quality health 
coverage, as well as funding for up to 400 school-based centers in 
order to provide a safety net and improved access to care for children.
  Since the enactment of the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, 
RepublicansDon'tCare measure last year, the Department of Health and 
Human Services has awarded approximately $21.98 million in grants to 
organizations in Florida alone through the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including more 
than $9.3 million for community and clinical prevention, more than $3.1 
million for public health infrastructure, and more than $9.4 million 
for primary care training.
  If we are to reduce health care costs, we must improve the health of 
all Americans. Investing in proven preventive measures can 
significantly reduce the risk of developing these diseases, improving 
people's lives and saving money.
  According to a report from Trust For America's Health entitled 
``Prevention for a Healthier America,'' investing just $10 per person 
per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical 
activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use 
could save our Nation more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.
  This is equivalent to and potentially greater than the amount as 
estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office by which H.R. 
1217 reduces direct spending over a 10-year period. Furthermore, a 
public opinion survey by Trust for America and the Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans favor an increased 
investment in disease prevention.
  The Prevention and Public Health Fund is supported also by nearly 600 
national organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, 
the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Families 
USA, and the AIDS Institute.
  H.R. 1217, on the other hand, is nothing more than an attack on 
affordable health insurance, primary care and safety net care for 
children. This bill is yet another feeble attempt by the ruling 
majority Republicans to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy the 
HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare bill one 
piece at a time, including those programs that have already been funded 
and are helping millions of middle class, elderly, and working poor 
Americans and their families as we speak.
  The misinformation that pervades the health care debate in this 
country never ceases to amaze me at all.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, the ruling Republican 
majority, would have the American people believe that the Prevention 
and Public Health Fund is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to spend money freely without congressional oversight. 
This is simply not true. A specific funding amount is allocated for 
prevention efforts through the fund each year during the fiscal year 
period: $500 million in 2010; $750 million in 2011; $1 billion in 
fiscal year 2012 and so on up to $2 billion beginning in 2015.
  This gives the Secretary, whomever she or he may be, under 
Republicans or Democrats, the flexibility and health care providers the 
funding certainty that they need to implement prevention and public 
health interventions that help Americans make healthier decisions for 
themselves and their families. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is 
the first and only Federal program with dedicated ongoing resources 
specifically designed to improve the public. It represents our 
commitment to preventing illness and investing in our Nation's long-
term physical and fiscal health.
  Let me say this, Madam Speaker: Every day that I awaken, I start my 
day by trying to figure what can I do to follow the scriptural mandate 
to help the least of us. I am curious whether my friends in the ruling 
majority have the same feeling.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I would just like to point out one small thing to my 
colleague from Florida. Yes, I do begin wondering every day wondering 
how I can make life better for other people. But I want to say that 
there is no accountability whatsoever in this provision of the bill, 
and we want accountability for every penny of money that we are 
spending on behalf of the American taxpayers.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, my learned colleague from North Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 2011 
budget agreement that we have passed. We have already heard some of the 
aspects that this budget agreement addresses, and I am going to address 
some additional aspects.
  I am very pleased to see this House once again value the culture of 
life. The FY 2011 budget now reinstates the D.C. Hyde amendment to 
ensure that no congressionally appropriated funds, Federal or local, 
are used to pay for elective abortions.
  According to the Susan B. Anthony List president, Marjorie 
Dannenfelser, Congress will save the lives of an estimated 1,000 unborn 
children when it votes to restore this amendment banning the use of 
taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions in the District of 
Columbia.
  It adjusts the U.N. Family Planning Agency funding from $55 million 
to $40 million. It adjusts international population control/family 
planning funding from $648 million to $575 million.
  It adjusts title 10 domestic family planning funding to $300 million, 
which is a cut of $17 million.
  This budget also calls for an up-or-down vote in both the House and 
the Senate, Madam Speaker, on the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
  While the fight is certainly not over, we are making great strides in 
the ongoing effort to not only get our country on a strong fiscal 
footing but to honor the value of lives born and unborn.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, you know, I was thinking we are approaching Mother's 
Day, and I thought of my mother. When it came to budgeting and 
appropriating money, she did not always have a great deal to work with, 
but she was a great budget analyst. She was an absolute wizard at 
crunching numbers, and she was an expert on knowing what worked and 
what did not.
  As a matter of fact, she often told us that an ounce of prevention 
was worth much more than a pound of cure. And so she knew that when it 
came to health care, prevention measures are worth much more than their 
weight in gold. She knew that it would be pennywise and pound foolish 
to cut or reduce the meager resources which we expend towards health 
education, health awareness, health promotion, and health screening.

                              {time}  1400

  If we don't think public health activities work, look for some 
cigarette smoke or cigar smoke in these Chambers. Look at the 
difference in the cost of treating lung cancer and cirrhosis of the 
liver versus preventing these diseases from occurring. In Illinois, we 
have a very proactive public health program, and we don't want to see 
it reduced, diminished or eliminated.
  Yes, we do need to cut spending, and we are cutting spending, but 
let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let's not be penny 
wise and pound foolish. Let's vote down this rule, and let's vote down 
H.R. 1217.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to save taxpayers money by cutting 
wasteful government spending. The program that we are cutting out we 
cannot be sure does anything for preventative health care. It has 
designated that, but there is no idea as to where the money is going to 
be spent. Republicans certainly want to see Americans do a better job 
of preventing disease and of making their

[[Page H2627]]

health care better, but what we fear is that this money may be used for 
elective abortions, so we are also here today to speak for those who 
cannot speak for themselves.
  This slush fund directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
invest in prevention and primary care by funding programs and 
initiatives under the Public Health Services Act. Title X of the Public 
Health Services Act provides funding for the abortion industry, 
including organizations like Planned Parenthood, which is the largest 
abortion provider in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle and the liberals in 
Washington have really outdone themselves to ensure their favorite 
constituencies are provided for in their new health care law. This 
slush fund is yet another Democrat trick to use taxpayer money to 
subsidize elective abortion. Despite what they may have you believe, 
supporters of taxpayer-funded elective abortion cannot honestly claim 
this money cannot be used for elective abortion under Title X. The 
liberal Democrat elites relinquished all authority over this slush fund 
to Secretary Sebelius. For far too long, abortion providers have used 
Title X money to subsidize their operating costs, thereby subsidizing 
elective abortion.
  We've heard a lot of misinformation being circulated in Washington 
this week about Planned Parenthood, the largest elective abortion 
provider in the country. As I pointed out in the Rules Committee last 
night, one of my colleagues across the aisle said that Republicans were 
``here to kill women'' and compared us to Nazis.
  Liberal Democrats maintain that women will lose access to 
preventative care if the government stops funding for the abortion 
industry. What they are not telling you is that Planned Parenthood has 
almost $1 billion in net assets and reported $737 million in revenues 
for its most recent filing year. Any big abortion organization making 
$737 million a year should be able to function without taxpayer 
subsidies, Mr. Speaker. This is not about women's health or access to 
preventative care. Through Federal and State Medicaid programs, low-
income women have access to family planning and preventative health 
services at hospitals, doctors' offices and community health centers 
nationwide.
  Another claim Planned Parenthood makes is that 97 percent of the 3 
million patients they served in fiscal 2008 received preventative care 
services and that only 3 percent received abortions. These supporters 
of taxpayer-funded abortion ought to check their math. According to 
their own facts sheet for March 2011, Planned Parenthood clinics 
performed 332,278 abortions in fiscal year 2008. If they saw 3 million 
patients and performed 332,278 abortions, that means at least 11 
percent of the services provided were abortions.
  If they cannot be trusted regarding this simple math, what else are 
they hiding from the American people, Mr. Speaker?
  Another astounding statistic I would like to share is that 97.6 
percent of pregnant women who received services at Planned Parenthood 
clinics received abortions. Only 2.4 percent of pregnant women received 
only prenatal or adoption referral services at Planned Parenthood.
  Elective abortion is not health care, Mr. Speaker. This is not about 
preventative health care or about improving access to primary care. 
This is about subsidizing the big abortion industry. If this slush fund 
remains unchecked, the Secretary could fund whatever program she 
chooses to the tune of up to $2 billion a year. That kind of money can 
purchase a lot of elective abortions, which strikes at the consciences 
of so many tax-paying Americans.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, that's just about the most convoluted, backward argument 
that I can imagine that I've heard in the 19 years that I've been here 
in the United States Congress.
  There is not one dime in the Prevention and Public Health Fund that 
can or will be used for abortions. The law in this land, enunciated by 
a legend and an icon, among the other things that Henry Hyde was, is 
that Federal funds cannot be used for that purpose, and to carry us 
into that neverland that the previous speaker just spoke of is 
astoundingly wrong.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida, and I carefully and enthusiastically associate myself with his 
response.
  We are all colleagues here. We call each other ``distinguished 
colleagues,'' and I call my good friend from North Carolina 
``distinguished colleague,'' with whom I disagree with wide and well-
versed opposition.
  First of all, as we approach a sacred holiday for many of us in this 
country, it is one of sacrifice, and as we move into the month of May, 
we begin to look at how mothers sacrifice to take care of their 
children and not themselves. Many of us during this time frame will be 
fasting because we find that this draconian road that our Republican 
friends are on, with the minutest and the smallest of a majority that 
voted in this low voting election in 2010, is frightening. We need 
prayer, and we need to fast because this is truly the road to ruin. I 
just hope that my colleagues who communicate to the American people 
will tell the truth. The budget, the repeal of the Prevention and 
Public Health, the CR, all of them are the road to ruin.
  Whether you agree with our President or not, he has it right: the 
country we can believe in.
  With regard to the CR, when you have The Washington Post or any 
newspaper saying that more than half of the $38 billion in cuts that 
are used in this CR for tomorrow are taken out of education, labor and 
health programs while those at the top 2 percent or 1 percent of the 
tax bracket keep going on and on--many of whom said we are willing to 
sacrifice, that we are willing to offer to be able to help this 
country--and then when they want to repeal the Prevention and Public 
Health bill so that the brunt of the people going in for medical care 
will be in the emergency rooms because they will not have had 
cholesterol checks or high blood pressure checks or checks for sickle 
cell or diabetes--they won't have any of that. They'll go into the 
emergency rooms, laying out in comas--that's what the repeal of this 
legislation is all about.
  The question you ask the Republicans is: What is the dream or the 
vision of America for them? It is a road to ruin, and the budget is an 
absurd ridiculousness that wants to cut Medicare and wants to cut 
Medicaid.
  In going back to the CR, how can you tell the District of Columbia 
citizens, who pay taxes, that they cannot take their own money and use 
it for the dictates of their elected body?

                              {time}  1410

  How can you tell them that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The gentleman is enormously kind.
  I sat and listened to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton who has 
lost a vote on this floor that she had, and the citizens of that 
community, the Mayor and the city council could do nothing but take to 
the streets to protest, How can you dictate what we do with our own 
dollars? And so over the next 48 hours, you will see the reason why 
many Americans are fasting, because they see that this country is going 
down the road of no return.
  And it hurts my heart to think that we're going to rescind $16 
billion that can be used to make a healthier country, to make a country 
where children can have access to health care, where a little 10-year-
old doesn't die because he has an abscess.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against all these rules and stop this 
from going down the road to ruin.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to respond somewhat to my 
colleague from Florida on some of the points that he made.
  He said that it is the law of the land that no Federal Government 
money

[[Page H2628]]

can be used to fund abortions. I know my colleague from Florida has 
been here a lot longer than I have been, and I know that he understands 
the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending, 
and I know that he knows that the Hyde amendment is only on 
appropriations bills. And as I explained earlier, Mr. Speaker, the 
appropriations bills are what we call discretionary spending, and that 
what the Democrats did in the health care bill was to put this $2 
billion in that bill and call it mandatory spending, which is not 
subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore does not 
have the restriction of the Hyde amendment to apply to it.
  So I would like to ask my colleague from Florida if he can guarantee 
on his own word to the American people today that nothing from this $2 
billion that is put in for mandatory spending--it's on automatic 
pilot--would ever be spent for abortions.
  Would the gentleman answer that question?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Of course I will. Will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Please, let's have a clear understanding that no dollars from this 
fund are going to be used for abortions.
  Ms. FOXX. Can the gentleman guarantee that?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I don't have any opportunity to guarantee 
whether or not I'm going to be alive in the next 30 seconds, let alone 
tell you what may happen. But if you ask my belief, and yours was your 
belief that it may be used is what you said, my dear friend, all I'm 
saying is it is not going to be. And the law enunciated through Henry 
Hyde, and almost verbatim has been included in the Affordable Care Act, 
precludes the use of money for abortions.
  Ms. FOXX. I would like to reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman has just made my point. He cannot guarantee that this 
money will not be used for abortions, and neither can anyone else. And 
that is the point that we are making, Mr. Speaker. There is no 
accountability for this $2 billion. It is a slush fund for the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services. And it is wrong, Mr. Speaker, 
for us to take the hard-earned money of American taxpayers and give it 
to the Secretary with no accountability and with the distinct 
possibility that the money could be used to fund abortions.
  The liberals ruling Washington the past 4 years have failed to 
address out-of-control mandatory or discretionary spending. In fact, 
under their control, discretionary spending has increased 84 percent in 
just 2 years.
  As I mentioned earlier, discretionary spending is the money Congress 
decides annually to spend on programs with inherent congressional 
oversight. Mandatory, or autopilot, spending is the money that is 
automatically pulled from the Treasury without regular congressional 
oversight. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, when that decision was made for 
Congress to abrogate its responsibility, but it's a weasel way out. We 
should be looking at every dollar every year, because that's our 
responsibility.
  Our debt and the liberals' insatiable appetite for perpetual 
government spending increases are sending America into a tailspin. In 
response to the complete lack of leadership and fiscal responsibility, 
House Republicans have been very aggressive in reducing wasteful 
government overspending, which is the real source of breathtaking 
budget deficits and private sector unemployment.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a chart that comes, I 
believe, from the Joint Committee on Economics, and it shows what 
happens when you increase government spending and when you decrease 
government spending when you're talking about private sector job 
creation. Every dollar the government takes from the private sector is 
one less dollar to be spent for private sector innovation and job 
growth. The government can create only government jobs.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the 13.5 million Americans counted in 
the official unemployment rate, more than 900,000 Americans have 
stopped looking for a job because they think no jobs exist for them. I 
want to point out here that, again, when we saw increased government 
spending, you see a decrease in private sector jobs. When you see 
decreased government spending, you see an increase in private sector 
jobs. That's what the Republicans want to do. Americans want jobs. They 
want to work. We need to cut government spending and allow the private 
sector to grow.
  More than 45 percent of Americans seeking work have been unemployed 
for more than 27 weeks. Real problems demand real solutions, Mr. 
Speaker. The track record in the House in 3 short months demonstrates 
that the new House Republican majority has heard the American people 
and is acting to provide the relief and solutions they deserve. Less 
government spending is crucial to encouraging private sector job 
creation and reducing unemployment. And where better to cut possible 
government spending than where money could be used for abortions?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member 
of the Rules Committee that we miss.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to the rule and the bill 
before us today.
  In 2008, I introduced legislation to create a Prevention and Wellness 
Trust Fund. Much of what I see in the Prevention and Public Health Fund 
resembles the goals in my legislation. I introduced the legislation and 
fought for these preventive care provisions during the Energy and 
Commerce Committee debate on the health care law. I believe investing 
in preventive health care is vital to helping Americans access the care 
they need to stay healthy, reduce their health care costs, and ease the 
burden on our overcrowded emergency rooms.
  Mr. Speaker, we spend more than $2 trillion annually on health care, 
more than any other nation on Earth. Yet tens of millions of Americans 
still suffer from preventable and chronic diseases. In fact, 
approximately 75 percent of the Nation's health care expenditure is 
spent on treating chronic conditions. These conditions account for 
seven of 10 deaths in America.
  For too long, the health delivery system in our country has been 
focused on only treating people after they get sick, not before. 
Prevention has been a luxury, if not an afterthought. Studies have 
shown that regular access to primary and preventive care can help keep 
people healthier, help avoid chronic conditions, catch diseases 
earlier, and therefore help lower costs.
  Sacramento resident Tyler, an active teenager, was a picture of model 
health. One day he noticed that he was having heart problems during 
football practice. Taking precautions, his parents took him to a doctor 
to run tests and found that he had a cardiac abnormality. Today, after 
taking the necessary preventive steps, Tyler is healthy. Thankfully, he 
sought preventive measures early, which kept his condition from 
worsening and likely saved his life.

                              {time}  1420

  Not every story ends as happily as Tyler's, though. Millions of 
Americans every year are diagnosed with chronic diseases because they 
did not have such access to preventive care. That is the focus of this 
fund, to improve prevention. This funding will reduce individual and 
taxpayer cost while saving lives. However, that fact is being 
overlooked by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This bill 
before us will have a devastating effect on the future health of 
America, both in terms of our physical health and for our fiscal 
responsibility.
  In order to truly improve both our health and our health care in this 
country, we must focus on prevention. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out again that 
Republicans would like to see more preventive care. However, the 
example that my colleague from California used says nothing about this 
bill because there is nothing in here to guarantee that this money will 
go to preventive care, absolutely nothing. There is no accountability 
in this legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2629]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my classmate and 
my good friend.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both 
this rule and H.R. 1217, the legislation to repeal the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act 
uses Hyde-like language. I was on the Energy and Commerce Committee; I 
still am. We put it into the Affordable Care Act that there will not be 
one penny of Federal funds that will go for elective abortions.
  The Hyde Act may be on appropriations bills, but the Affordable Care 
Act has that language in there. I know there is going to be a lot of 
talk during debate about the legislation and how we need to reduce our 
deficits, and tough funding cuts will need to be made by Congress in 
order to bring down our national debt, H.R. 1217 is not meaningful 
legislation to reduce our debt, nor is it a plan to create jobs or spur 
the growth in our economy. This legislation is yet another attempt by 
the majority to dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act because 
they do not have the support to do the straight repeal of health 
reform.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I know that this 
bill would be the first of several pieces that will mark a reversal of 
position by the majority on what has been previously bipartisan-
supported health care concepts.
  I have worked across the aisle for years with my colleagues on many 
prevention provisions, including Prevention and Public Health Fund that 
would fund the integration of primary care services into publicly 
funded mental and behavioral health settings. To date, Texas alone has 
received $495,000 for this program. I introduced this legislation for 
several years with bipartisan support from Representative Tim Murphy. 
At the time it was called the Community Mental Health Services 
Improvement Act. And yet here we are today rolling back funding on 
these important bipartisan provisions to fulfill campaign promises.
  We know that prevention programs will ultimately save our health care 
system in the future. What we did with the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund in the Affordable Care Act was to make a down payment on reducing 
preventable health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, strokes, and 
heart disease. The fund represents an unprecedented investment--$15 
billion over 10 years--that will help prevent disease, detect it early, 
and manage conditions before they become severe. By concentrating on 
the causes of chronic disease, the Affordable Care Act helps move the 
Nation from a focus on sickness and disease to one based on wellness 
and prevention.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Don't let the majority fool you today by 
saying this legislation is a cost-saving measure. Several things that 
they won't be highlighting in relation to this legislation are the cost 
of treating these chronic diseases in Texas alone totaled over $17.2 
billion, and chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion in lost 
productivity and economic costs to Texas.
  If we want to have a debate on saving money and creating jobs, I 
would like the majority to show us their job-creating and deficit-
reduction plan. They have been in power for 100 days, and we have spent 
most of the time by creating more debt by repealing provisions in 
health reform that would actually save my State billions of dollars. 
Today is yet another example of the majority's misguided priorities.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, please inform both sides the 
remaining amount of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that 
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 
1354, the American Jobs Matter Act of 2011.
  To address that, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, in Washington over the last few months, we have seen a 
lot of what we are seeing today, a lot of talk from my Republican 
colleagues about ideological budget cuts and about divisive social 
issues. And today, once more, we are here debating repeal of part or 
all of the health care bill.
  But back home, we are hearing about one thing and largely one thing 
only, and that is job creation. Now, I appreciate my friend from North 
Carolina dressing up her remarks with some talk about jobs, but this 
debate today isn't about creating jobs. It is about a political agenda 
to take on the Democratically passed health care bill.
  But we need to start plugging into where Main Street is and having a 
real conversation about job creation in this country, and so I am here 
today to talk about one idea in particular that can reach out to the 
5,000 manufacturers in my State, and the tens of thousands more of 
manufacturing employees who are looking for good middle class work and 
help from Congress that hasn't been forthcoming in the last 3 months.
  Since 2001, this country has shut down over 42,000 manufacturing 
plants. We have lost about 5 million manufacturing jobs; but during 
that same period of time, we have increased spending on defense 
manufacturing in this country by 81 percent. The problem is that 81 
percent increase hasn't gone to factories in Connecticut or North 
Carolina or Florida or anywhere else. It has gone overseas because 
after building loophole after loophole into our domestic sourcing laws, 
like the Buy America Act, we are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs in 
part because we are spending more and more taxpayer dollars overseas.
  So we need to defeat this previous question so we can bring a 
commonsense jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives, the 
American Jobs Matter Act.
  Now, let me explain what this bill does. It is pretty simple. It says 
that anytime a Federal agency is awarding a contract, in particular the 
Department of Defense, that they can give a leg up, that they can give 
preference to the bidder who promises and guarantees to create more 
U.S. jobs. Most of my constituents think that already happens. They 
already think we have some system in place to make sure that our 
taxpayer dollars are being used to give preference to American 
companies rather than foreign companies. It is not happening. The law 
doesn't allow it.
  So let's pass today the American Jobs Matter Act. It will make sure 
that our money gets spent on our jobs here at home.
  A quick story from Connecticut: I have a company that makes copper 
nickel tubing in Waterbury, Connecticut. They are the only American 
company that supplies that product to the Virginia submarine class. 
There is one company in Europe that makes it. But because we can't give 
them preference by law today, they have lost one of their two most 
important contracts to that European supplier, and along with it dozens 
of American jobs. That is our money going overseas, and we need to do 
something about it rather than debating the health care bill all over 
again.
  When people really care about building back those manufacturing jobs, 
we should in fact be spending every day in this Congress talking about 
bills like the American Jobs Matter Act. Instead, we are talking about 
defunding Sesame Street, about destroying Planned Parenthood, and once 
again today talking about repealing the health care bill; and, in fact, 
a part of the health care bill that is going to create jobs through 
preventive health care services.
  It is no wonder that Americans think so little of this Republican 
Congress, because they are not focused on what people out there are 
focused on, J-O-B-S, jobs. The American Jobs Matter Act, if we bring it 
to the floor today, is a commonsense measure to simply target taxpayer 
money to the creation of American jobs. We don't have to spend any more 
money to create American jobs. We just have to spend the money we are 
already spending better. We spend half the military dollars in the

[[Page H2630]]

world coming out of the U.S. budget, and this engine of expenditure 
should be used not only to make this country stronger militarily, but 
also to make it stronger economically.

                              {time}  1430

  The American Jobs Matter Act is one way to get there. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can get to the real 
business of this country--creating good-paying middle class jobs.
  Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert the text of the amendment that the gentleman from Connecticut 
spoke to in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior 
to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, no prevention and public health funds are or can be used 
to pay for abortions, and this bill has absolutely nothing to do with 
that. What it will stop, this bill as offered by the ruling Republican 
House, is immunization for kids and seniors, programs to stop childhood 
obesity and to prevent heart disease and diabetes. That's what they are 
stopping. Please don't be misled. No dollars from this fund will be 
used for abortion.
  If we as legislators are to be about the business of helping 
Americans live healthy, productive lives, we must change our 
fundamental approach to health care by investing in illness prevention, 
not just treatment.
  The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the key to a coordinated, 
comprehensive, sustainable and accountable approach to improving our 
Nation's health outcomes. I would also add that at a time when 
Americans are looking to Congress for leadership, the Republican ruling 
majority in the House are continuing their assault on comprehensive 
health care reform that expands coverage to 32 million people instead 
of focusing on job creation.
  It's time to stop playing games with the health of the American 
people and get down to business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass a jobs 
bill without any further delay. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just like to say in response to my colleague from Florida 
that I think this rule and the underlying bill have a lot more to do 
with elective abortions than they do with government contracting.
  Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why Secretary 
Sebelius does not need a slush fund set on autopilot. The American 
people expect their elected representatives to be wise guardians of 
their hard-earned dollars. They vehemently objected to the ruling 
Democrat agenda of Federal overreach into their daily lives and sent a 
clear message to Washington last November: Government must be 
responsible and accountable.
  All across America, American families are tightening their belts, 
cutting their budgets and living within their means. It's time 
Washington did the same.
  For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill so we can 
restore congressional spending oversight and save the taxpayers $16 
billion over the next 10 years.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1354) to amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, to allow 
     contracting officers to consider information regarding 
     domestic employment before awarding a Federal contract, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-

[[Page H2631]]

minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 219, if ordered; ordering 
the previous question on House Resolution 218; and adoption of House 
Resolution 218, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     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
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     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
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     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 (FL)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     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
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     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
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Berman
     Clay
     Culberson
     Doggett
     Engel
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Reichert
     Schakowsky
     Walz (MN)
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1459

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Messrs. COURTNEY and INSLEE, and Ms. 
EDWARDS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 180, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     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
     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
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     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
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings

[[Page H2632]]


     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     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
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Berman
     Cantor
     Clay
     Engel
     Fleming
     Giffords
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (CA)
     Meeks
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Schakowsky
     Velazquez
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1505

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 258, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 258, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 258, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________