Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)

[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

[[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.''

____________________