[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 58 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2943-H2952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1213, REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING 
 FOR STATE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
  OF H.R. 1214, REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING FOR SCHOOL HEALTH CENTER 
                              CONSTRUCTION

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 236

       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. 1213) to repeal mandatory funding provided to 
     States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to 
     establish American Health Benefit Exchanges. 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.
       Sec. 2.  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. 1214) to repeal mandatory funding for school-based 
     health center construction. 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 received 
     for printing in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII in a 
     daily issue dated May 2, 2011, and except pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to 
     be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if 
     printed. 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 gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. House Resolution 236 provides one rule for consideration of 
H.R. 1213 under a structured process, making all five Democratic 
amendments in order that comply with the rules of the House; and H.R. 
1214 under a modified open process that gives all Members an 
opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record 
and have them considered on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to offer a rule to allow us to debate 
H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214. H.R. 1213 would repeal mandatory funding 
provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to 
establish American health benefit exchanges. H.R. 1214 would repeal 
mandatory spending for school-based health center construction.
  Quite simply, our country is broke, and we cannot continue to spend 
money like we have in the past. Our spending crisis is clear. Slush 
funds and unlimited tabs on the Treasury must be the first to go, 
particularly when they are being used to fund government-centered 
takeover of our Nation's health care system that does not improve care, 
does not lower costs and, simply, we cannot afford.
  The American people sent a clear message last November: ObamaCare is 
not the answer; stop spending money that our country doesn't have, 
money we are borrowing and spending on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren who will be left footing the bill.
  H.R. 1213, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee who has been a leader in this fight, repeals the 
provision that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services a blank 
check to determine how much to facilitate enrollment in the State 
health care exchanges set up by the underlying bill. The law includes 
no definition of what that means. For example, a 100 percent premium 
subsidy for individuals to enroll in the exchange would not be 
prohibited under the statute.
  In the year since ObamaCare was enacted, it has already become clear 
the law set up an unworkable and an unaffordable system. There have 
been countless numbers of waivers given out and slush funds such as 
this to allow the Federal Government to continue to push more money 
onto the States,

[[Page H2944]]

force them to accept provisions that simply don't make sense and don't 
work. Just because the authors of ObamaCare could not determine the 
amount necessary to fund these programs does not mean American 
taxpayers should allow the Secretary to cash this blank check.

                              {time}  1220

  Secretary Sebelius, in a March 3 hearing, testified that there are no 
monetary limitations on the size of the appropriation and the law 
requires no further congressional action for the Secretary to spend 
these funds. CBO estimates a reduction in direct spending by an 
estimated $14.6 billion over the next 10 years would be achieved by 
successful passage of this bill. And that is just an estimate. With a 
blank check, the spending could be much higher.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that giving any executive branch official a 
blank check is a bad idea, particularly when we already have a $1.6 
trillion deficit this year alone and a $14 trillion national debt. We 
must vote to repeal this provision.
  In regards to H.R. 1214, introduced by Representative Burgess of 
Texas, who is one of the physician members of our Republican 
Conference, it repeals the school-based health center construction 
fund. ObamaCare provides $200 million in direct appropriations through 
fiscal year 2013, which this legislation would rescind. This money is 
only for facilities with an express prohibition on using the funds for 
personnel or to provide health services at these newly constructed 
facilities. The facilities could be built with no guarantee, therefore, 
that the center would ever see or care for one single patient.
  This fund is yet another example of the wasteful, duplicative 
spending that caused ObamaCare to have such a huge price tag and 
another example of spending we simply cannot afford. ObamaCare and the 
stimulus bill have already made $3 billion available to the Department 
of Health and Human Services for facility improvements at community 
health centers. Providing an additional $50 million a year is 
duplicative. We do not need to build for building's sake. Therefore, we 
must vote to repeal this provision.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
giving me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  It's my understanding this is his first rule that he is managing in 
his name on the floor of the House, and I congratulate him in that 
regard. In the 111th Congress, I had the opportunity to manage a number 
of rules, and I had a perfect record--I never lost a rule. This 
Congress as well, I too have a perfect record--I have never won a rule. 
I wish the gentleman from New York success in his efforts and 
congratulate him on his appointment to the Rules Committee and look 
forward to working with him throughout the 112th Congress.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POLIS. Today, while millions of Americans remain unemployed and 
millions more await the chance to receive affordable health care, the 
Republicans are spending another week rehashing old debates instead of 
talking about creating jobs and, in fact, in this case, undermining 
Americans' access to quality health care.
  This rule brings forth two bills. First, the majority brings forth, 
under this bill, legislation that will prevent Americans from accessing 
the exchanges which are competitive marketplaces in which to buy 
private insurance.
  Now, there's a lot of subterfuge and misinformation in this debate. 
For instance, there is no ObamaCare option. There is no public 
insurance option that we are even discussing here. What is being 
discussed is a marketplace in which individuals, primarily those who 
work in small businesses or are self-employed, will have access to 
choose from the private policy of their choice.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this Republican 
proposal, 2 million fewer Americans will be enrolled in exchanges in 
2015. The Congressional Budget Office also says that H.R. 1213 will 
result in higher premiums in the exchange. Again, a bill that is 
delivering higher premiums for American citizens--hardly, hardly the 
outcry that I have heard on the stump.
  I had a chance to have public meetings in the last 2 weeks back in 
our district, as many Members of Congress have. My constituents, Mr. 
Speaker, did not request that we deliver higher health insurance 
premiums. They wanted us to deal with the deficit. They wanted us to 
deal with jobs and the economy. Not a single constituent of mine asked 
for higher health insurance premiums, which seems to be a priority of 
this Congress.
  Now, there may be a talking point involved, and certainly both of 
these bills today were also included in H.R. 2, which was a repeal of 
health care reform, largely. Now we are looking at individual pieces. 
But this new marketplace has historically been an idea that has had 
strong bipartisan support: to have competitive health care exchanges; 
to keep in tact America's employment-based system while expanding 
access to tens of millions of people, including small businesses and 
people who are self-employed. Truly, the exchanges represent an 
opportunity for a more competitive and a more transparent marketplace 
that empowers consumers to make the choice between private insurers.
  The other bill that is brought forth under this particular rule, 
after we have dispensed with denying health care to an estimated 2 
million more Americans through the exchanges, we are also, in this next 
bill, eliminating funding for school-based health clinic construction, 
renovation, and equipment. That would particularly harm our Nation's 
health care services, especially for children, youth, and families and 
those with low incomes.
  School-based health care clinics serve students whose access to 
health care is limited; and frequently, the scope of services is 
determined by school officials in partnership with parents and 
community-based health care initiatives. Services are designed to 
identify problems early, provide continuity of care, and improve 
academic participation. These programs save money by providing access 
to preventive care that frequently alludes many of the families 
affected.
  And yet also, while we are denying basic preventive care to our 
Nation's youth, the passage of this bill will also deny job 
opportunities to Americans all across the country who are ready with 
shovel-ready projects to begin improving and building school-based 
health care clinics. So here we are with a bill: less jobs, less health 
care, less education--hardly the priorities that I think the voters 
wanted for the 112th Congress.
  Democrats believe strongly that we need to make tough choices to end 
the deficit and end the climbing spiral of debt. But what we are left 
with with these two bills, as separate from H.R. 2, is actually the 
worst of both worlds. The Republicans leave in place the taxes that 
were used to pay for health care reform--they leave in place in these 
two bills the medical device tax; they leave in place the tax on 
unearned income--and yet they remove the benefits to the American 
people from these taxes.
  Whenever the American people agree to any degree of taxes, they want 
to see a tangible result. But what is being done with these bills is 
leaving in place the taxes of health care reform and removing the 
benefits to the American people of health care reform. That's hardly a 
balanced and fair approach, and it's one that the House should reject.
  I would remind my colleagues of House Resolution 9, which I supported 
on the floor of the House of Representatives. It dealt with 13 items 
out of the original jurisdiction of our Rules Committee before the 
gentleman from New York joined our Rules Committee. We instructed the 
House on replacing health care reform and what some areas for working 
on it would be.
  I would like to submit to the Record in the context of this debate, 
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 9, which was adopted by the House and, 
indeed, discusses changing existing health care law within the various 
committees of jurisdiction to foster economic growth and private sector 
job creation; to lower health care premiums, preserve a patient's 
ability to keep their health care plan, provide people with preexisting 
conditions affordable access to health care; and many, many other good 
ideas.

[[Page H2945]]

  But rather than discussing any of these 13 points that were contained 
in House Resolution 9, the business of the committees of jurisdiction 
has apparently been not only to repeal health care reform generally but 
now to repeal each of the individual components while leaving the taxes 
in place. We would encourage these committees to comply with House 
Resolution 9. And I think by rejecting this bill before us today, we 
are sending a powerful message to the committees of jurisdiction that 
rather than talking about repeal, repeal, repeal, they need to also 
discuss replace.
  What are we going to do if the exchanges don't exist or are 
handicapped to provide people with preexisting conditions access to 
affordable health care? Again, if we repeal the support for the 
exchanges, how are we fostering economic growth and private sector 
growth? How are we encouraging small businesses and self-employed 
people to have access to the same health care services at a similar 
cost that large employers already have?
  I call upon my colleagues to reject this rule and both underlying 
bills and begin the discussions of how to improve and build upon health 
care reform, finding a common ground between Members of both parties 
and saving taxpayers money to help reduce the deficit.

                               H. Res. 9

       In the House of Representatives, U.S., January 20, 2011.
       Resolved, That the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, shall each report to the House legislation proposing 
     changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction 
     with provisions that--
       (1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation 
     by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;
       (2) lower health care premiums through increased 
     competition and choice;
       (3) preserve a patient's ability to keep his or her health 
     plan if he or she likes it;
       (4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to 
     affordable health coverage;
       (5) reform the medical liability system to reduce 
     unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;
       (6) increase the number of insured Americans;
       (7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;
       (8) provide the States greater flexibility to administer 
     Medicaid programs;
       (9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility 
     for health care coverage and costs;
       (10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide 
     conscience protections for health care providers;
       (11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful 
     spending;
       (12) do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement 
     programs or increase the tax burden on Americans; or
       (13) enact a permanent fix to the flawed Medicare 
     sustainable growth rate formula used to determine physician 
     payments under title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
     preserve health care for the nation's seniors and to provide 
     a stable environment for physicians.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending congratulations to 
my good friend from Corning for his stellar management of his first 
rule on the House floor, and to say that we have managing this two of 
my favorite Members, including my friend from Boulder who serves on the 
Rules Committee with such distinction.
  I have to say that I'm also glad to see that we have Dr. Roe here, 
who has, over the past couple of years, regaled us in the Rules 
Committee of the failures of massive, even State, government 
involvement in health care and the dramatic increase in costs that he's 
seen in his State of Tennessee because of the so-called TennCare 
program that has existed there. I know that we are going to look 
forward to hearing from him later.
  Let me, at the outset, respond as the author of H. Res. 9 to the 
comments that my friend from Boulder has just offered, Mr. Speaker. 
First, I want to say that I believe that the measures before us are all 
about job creation and economic growth, improving health care and 
improving education, all three of the things that my friend from 
Boulder indicated that he doesn't believe that we are successfully 
addressing here.
  Second, I have to say that as we looked at the litany of those 13 
items included within H. Res. 9, mark my words, the committees of 
jurisdiction are already working on and focusing on those priority 
items. I believe that the purchase of health insurance across State 
lines needs to be a very high priority as we want to ensure that the 
American people have access to quality health care. We need to make 
sure that we have pooling to deal with preexisting conditions. That 
continues to be a bipartisan priority. And, in fact, on the issue of 
the purchase of insurance across State lines, and obviously on pooling 
for preexisting conditions, President Obama, even though he opposed it 
in the measure, has indicated his support of those items.
  We need to expand medical savings accounts so that people can be 
incentivized to put dollars aside for the purchase of direct health 
care needs and/or health insurance.
  We also need to do what we can to expand something that actually 
passed the Republican House of Representatives but was killed by our 
colleagues in the other body 5 years ago, that is, associated health 
plans that allow for small businessmen and -women to come together and 
actually get reduced rates as larger corporations and entities have 
done.
  And the fifth item that, of course, we heard the President of the 
United States say in his State of the Union message he supported but, 
of course, was not included in the measure and that is real, meaningful 
lawsuit abuse reform because we continue to see the dramatic increase 
in health care costs because of the number of frivolous lawsuits out 
there. We have a load of empirical evidence on that, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, the President of the United States stood here and talked about 
how important it was to deal with it, and yet we hadn't. Those are five 
among the 13 items that are addressed in H. Res. 9. And I will tell you 
that the committees of jurisdiction are today working on that.
  Why is it that we are here today?
  Well, we all know that we did pass the repeal measure out of the 
House of Representatives. We felt very strongly that the need to focus 
on some of the most flagrant examples of abuse by passing legislation 
out of this House needs to continue to be a priority, and that's 
exactly what we're doing today.
  Now, I don't like the use of the word ``slush fund'' to be thrown 
around. It makes me a little uncomfortable, I have to admit. But that 
is a term that has been used by more than a few people to describe the 
funds that are granted, such funds as may be necessary and open-ended, 
without congressional oversight to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. And it seems to me that one of the things we need to 
recognize in a bipartisan way is that enhancing congressional oversight 
of the executive branch is an institutional issue. We have a 
responsibility to the American people to make sure that we scrutinize 
every tax dollar that is being expended, and this legislation is 
designed to deal with one of the major flaws in the health care bill, 
that being the granting, without congressional oversight, of such funds 
as may be necessary.
  Similarly, if you look at the expansion in every way of expenditures 
which are not going to do anything to improve the quality of health 
care in this country, it seems to me that this is the right thing for 
us to do.
  Now, procedurally, I know that my friend joins me. I'm not going to 
ask him to join, as Mr. Dicks has repeatedly in the past in 
complimenting the work of the Rules Committee, in providing for a 
process that allows for greater deliberation. But these two items 
before us are, in fact, making in order every single amendment that was 
submitted to the Rules Committee that is germane, complies with CutGo, 
does not waive the rules of the House.
  We had amendments that were submitted. One of these measures is going 
to be considered under a modified open rule, meaning that any Member of 
the House will have an opportunity, assuming that they submit their 
amendment into the Congressional Record and if it complies with the 
rules of the House, they will be able to offer their amendment to this 
measure. We had 13

[[Page H2946]]

amendments submitted to the Rules Committee; five were made in order. 
The other seven did not comply with the rules of the House, whether 
nongermane or did not comply with the CutGo rule that was put into 
place at the beginning of this Congress.
  So what we've done procedurally here under the rule that my friend 
from Corning, Mr. Reed, is managing is we are, Mr. Speaker, providing 
for a chance for a free-flowing debate, what Speaker Boehner indicated 
before the election last year was absolutely essential for us to do. 
These are commitments that were made to the American people throughout 
the election process. They sent a very strong message by sending 87 new 
Members of the House on the Republican side, nine Members on the 
Democratic side, 96 newly elected Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  But their message was to deal with this issue, ensuring that 
Americans have access to quality health care, but don't expand the 
Federal Government's involvement in it, and ensure that since we had 
bills dropped on us in the middle of the night, one very famous one, 
the cap-and-trade bill, a 300-page amendment given to us that no one 
had seen at 3 o'clock in the morning as the measure was being reported 
out, they said, read the bill. They said, make sure that you have a 
degree of accountability and transparency in your deliberations.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at what's happened in the 
last 4 months, we have had, I believe, more amendments considered, more 
debate. Just take the beginning of our continuing resolution when we 
had 200 amendments debated here on the House floor, 90 hours of debate, 
more Member involvement than we had had in the entire 4 years of the 
last speakership.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, we, today are on the right track. In a very, 
very responsible, transparent and open way we are addressing an issue 
that the American people said they wanted us to address. Our priority 
with this legislation is to ensure that every American has access to 
quality, affordable health care. That's something that we want to make 
happen.
  I believe that the legislation that is before us today will enhance 
our chance to do that as we seek to reduce the size, scope, reach and 
control of this behemoth, our Federal Government, which has a $14 
trillion debt. With one of these measures, we're going to be saving $14 
billion, a very important step in the direction which both Democrats 
and Republicans alike say they want us to achieve.
  I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond before 
further yielding.
  The gentleman from California again identified several areas where 
there are opportunities for both parties to work together: allowing the 
sale of insurance across State lines, something I certainly support; 
pooling for high-risk individuals; reforming the medical liability 
system.
  Again, it really goes to a question of if we are, in fact, repealing 
in part or all various parts of the health care reform, what is 
replacing it. When we talk about pooling of high-risk individuals, if 
we can put together a way of doing that, that can effectively serve as 
a marketplace or as an exchange.
  What this bill simply does is repeal the support for the exchanges, 
leaving many of these with preexisting conditions, particularly those 
who work for small businesses or are self-employed, entirely in the 
lurch. As we discuss how to improve health care for the American 
people, it's critical to actually have the solution to the policy 
problem that's been identified.
  The gentleman talked about an inadequate selection process with 
regard to the use of funds, inadequate congressional oversight. Again, 
why not bring a bill forward that talks about setting the right process 
in place to allow for the correct oversight of the use of these funds? 
It's a question of making it work for the American people rather than 
throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, we are at month five, and I thought that 
we'd be talking about job creation and spurring economic development 
across this country. Instead, we are yet again talking about how we can 
repeal elements of a health care bill that passed some time ago.

                              {time}  1240

  Nonetheless, today I rise in opposition to the rule and to the 
underlying bills. Let me first just say a few words about the 
exchanges.
  In my State of Maryland, our Governor, Martin O'Malley, in working 
with our legislature, has been in the process of actually trying to 
make this work--implementing the health insurance exchanges in the 
State to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks. In fact, 
our Secretary of Health has come out with a study that shows that, by 
going through this process of implementing the exchange and moving 
through reform, we are going to create jobs and provide health care for 
thousands and thousands of people across the State of Maryland and for 
our small businesses, which want to do right by their employees by 
providing health care.
  So I don't understand what the problem is here, and I'm a bit 
confused. On the one hand, the majority doesn't want to pursue a public 
option for millions who are uninsured. On the other hand, they don't 
want to make a marketplace, which is what these exchanges are, 
available to people to get health care in their States. You cannot have 
it both ways unless you want to continue to leave millions and millions 
of people uninsured across this country and without health care.
  In the underlying bill as well, the majority proposes in the Act to 
eliminate funding provided to construct, renovate and improve services 
at school-based health centers. In my district, the elimination of 
these funds would mean something very specific: The centers at Fairmont 
Heights High School, one of the poorest communities in our district, 
would be without a health center. There is Northwestern High School in 
Adelphi, Maryland; Oxon Hill High School in Oxon Hill, Maryland; and 
Broad Acres Elementary School in Silver Spring, which are serving very 
needed communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. EDWARDS. These school-based health care centers offer a wide 
range of services, from wellness checks to mental health services for 
our young people, which is care they wouldn't receive otherwise--or 
maybe they would in expensive emergency room visits in a crisis.
  Studies show the link between affordable health care for our students 
and their education success, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation. Let's create jobs instead of dismantling a health 
care system.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the 
underlying bills. I would like to draw particular attention to H.R. 
1213, which would repeal a provision in the health care law that gives 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services unlimited spending authority 
with regard to State-based exchanges.
  Let me start by saying that two years ago, when I came to Congress, I 
looked at the American health care system, and I asked: What's the 
problem with it?
  The problem with the American health care system is that it costs too 
much money. It's too expensive to go to the doctor or to go to the 
hospital to receive medical care. If it were affordable, we could all 
have it. Number two, we have a segment of our population that doesn't 
have access to affordable health care coverage. Let's say it's a 
drywall or a sheetrock worker or a carpenter who may be out, working. 
Maybe his spouse works in a diner, let's say, and they get along just 
fine, but they can't afford the high premiums. Number three, we have a 
liability crisis in this country that is forcing the cost of health 
care through the roof.
  Well, what did the Affordable Health Care Act do? It did do number 
two. It

[[Page H2947]]

expanded coverage for some people in this 2,500-page bill--remember, 
it's this thick--but it did nothing to help curb the costs, and it did 
nothing for liability, which is forcing the costs of health insurance 
coverage higher for all of us. I've seen it in my own State of 
Tennessee. The enactment of this legislation we are talking about today 
will take $14 billion that we don't have.
  Let me just say this: What worries me about Washington, D.C., is that 
we didn't get the memo. We're broke here. Number two, what is that $14 
billion going to do? It's not going to put one more patient in my 
office who I can see and treat. It's going to the bureaucracy. I see it 
in education. I see it in commerce. I see the beast, the Federal 
Government beast, just getting larger and larger and larger. The money 
doesn't actually get down to a patient for whom I can write a 
prescription so he can then go to a pharmacy, get the prescription 
filled, and then get his health care.
  So we talk about several simple things that the chairman spoke about 
just a moment ago very eloquently, and let me show you an example.
  I have a Health Savings Account. This little card right here is a 
debit card. I don't have to fool with the insurance company. I don't 
have to fool with the Federal Government. I don't have to fool with 
anybody. I fool with me and my doctor; and who should be making health 
care decisions are patients and their physicians, not an exchange and 
not all of this. That's just going to complicate it. I go in with this, 
and I pay for it, and I usually get a significant discount when I do 
that.
  There are a couple of other things that you can do. Just remember, as 
to this 2,500-page bill, Mr. Speaker, you could have done two-thirds of 
it with two paragraphs. One which I agree with, which is in the bill--
and it's one of the few things I do agree with--is to simply let 
children stay on their parents' plans. Pick your age--25, 26, 27. 
Number two, simply sign up people who are already eligible for 
government programs. That's SCHIP and Medicaid. If you do those two 
things, you can cover nearly 20 million people without this complex, 
almost incomprehensible bill. We have a Secretary who really has a 
fungible account from which she can spend billions of dollars that are 
really unaccounted for. Also, we are knee-deep in red ink. That's the 
major problem with granting the Secretary access to the Federal 
Treasury.
  The exchanges mandated by this affordable health care law are the 
first step for Washington bureaucrats in really getting more control of 
our health care system. Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely for 
consumer choice because I believe consumer-driven health care is the 
only way to keep costs down. I think, if we don't do that, you will 
never get the costs going in the right direction. Instead, this creates 
a top-down mandate for the type of insurance that will be made 
available in these exchanges. Remember, when you're looking at this 
Affordable Health Care Act, the government--not you, the patient, as an 
individual, as a person, and not the doctor--decides what is an 
adequate health care plan. So these exchanges are basically just an 
excuse for unelected Washington bureaucrats to really make our health 
care decisions for us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a free market system. It's basically central 
planning. Patients should be allowed to choose which benefits they want 
when buying their insurance plans. By passing H.R. 1213, Congress would 
send a message that we want health care reform that puts the patients 
first.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. There are another couple of things that are 
very simple in lowering the costs of health care.
  It is difficult to cover people in small businesses. There is no 
question about that. Association health plans allow you to do that, to 
group and become large groups. There is a second thing you can do that 
really is so simple I don't know why we haven't done it. I spent a 
year, when I was running for Congress and after I left my medical 
practice, and I had to buy an individual insurance policy. It was very 
expensive. Many people out there in small businesses or individuals who 
work on farms or in other places do the same thing. To make that 
insurance more affordable, not only could you have an association 
health plan, but number two, as an individual, you could have allowed 
me to deduct my health premiums just like a big business does, just 
like a huge corporation does, and you would have automatically lowered 
my cost by 35 percent and would have made insurance more affordable.
  So there are many things we could do. This is not what we should be 
doing. I would urge a vote for the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond really 
briefly.
  In the minority report from the committee, it discusses the oversight 
of the exchanges. Specifically, the Government Accountability Office is 
required to review the operations and the administration of the 
exchanges. In addition, not one, not two, but three congressional 
committees--Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Government Reform, and 
other congressional committees--can provide the oversight of the 
implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act according to section 
1311.
  Again, if there is additional oversight, as the gentleman from 
California seeks, why are we not discussing a bill that provides 
additional oversight? We all want this money to be spent correctly and 
well.
  With that, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is an open dialogue with 
the American people through their Members of Congress.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I thank the manager of the 
majority, but this is an open dialogue.
  To my good friend from Tennessee, who may not have read the bill the 
Affordable Health Care Act and who may have missed the fact that Health 
Savings Accounts are allowed, no one is blocking anyone, and the 
accounts are considered ``sufficient'' under that bill. So, if you 
desire to have a Health Savings Account, so be it, but those savings 
accounts really adhere to those who are more wealthy and who are more 
endowed with finances.

                              {time}  1250

  What these repeal bills will do, both H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214--and I 
was hoping the Rules Committee would have voided these bills and not 
allow them to go forward, but they did not. I thank them for the 
amendment that they gave me and the respect they gave me in the time 
that we were before that committee.
  But the fact is that the exchanges are to allow those who do not have 
means to get into an open market, the same thing that our Republican 
friends have been talking about, to allow people to go across State 
lines to buy the cheapest State policy or the policy that they can for 
families that have the sickest of the sick, children that are disabled, 
others that are in need who heretofore have been blocked.
  By the way, the Affordable Care Act takes away the bar of anyone who 
has a preexisting condition, such as pregnancy, from not being able to 
get insurance. What is wrong with that?
  By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, an independent budget 
office, says that if we repeal these provisions, the exchange, the 
premiums of the American people, the farmer, the small business will go 
up and not down. Go up. What more common sense can you have as a reason 
for voting against these bills and voting against the rule?
  H.R. 1214 has to do with school-based clinics. That is an innovative 
concept. In fact, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we 
have begun to think of schools as a site for individuals if they are 
built in this new structure, the way they are funded, to be able to be 
designed in a way to ensure that they are secure as a site for 
evacuation, a place to go when there is a disaster. That means that a 
school-based clinic that can be part of the community health system 
will be available in times of emergencies. What sense does it make to 
eliminate the opportunity to improve a community's safety and security 
in these times of trouble and questioning about terrorism, finding a 
place where the community could go?
  I don't know whether there are structures in Alabama that could have 
withstood these horrible tornados, but we are trying to build schools 
now to be

[[Page H2948]]

more safe and secure. So both of these bills make no common sense. Some 
1,900 school-based clinics serve our children and their extended 
families. Do we want a community and a Nation that is healthier, or do 
we want to have a Nation of sick people?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his 
kindness.
  This is what these two bills will allow us to become: One, to ignore 
those who don't have the resources for a health savings account, are 
not packing big wads of money in their pocket, to be able to say I can 
independently go out and get insurance based upon the monies that I am 
going to put into some kind of account.
  Fine for those who can do it. But I can assure you, the Nation's 
farmers and small businesses are glad to be able to know that their 
employees can go into an exchange. They are also glad to know there are 
tax incentives just for them in this bill.
  And, finally, I would say the Nation's parents, single parents, 
parents that are making ends meet are glad for school-based clinics.
  Vote against the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I have read the bill, all pages of 
it. I won't say that says a whole lot about my intelligence, but I did 
read the entire health care bill. When you speak of HSAs only being for 
wealthy people, that is absolutely not correct.
  In my own practice, we have offered the 300 people or so who get 
insurance through our practice, we allow them to get a traditional 
health insurance policy or an HSA, and over 3 out of 4 people choose an 
HSA. And why is that? Because they make the health care decisions, not 
an insurance company and not a bureaucrat.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his correction.
  My point would be, is it not okay then for your patients to use the 
health savings account but also okay for those who still may not have 
the resources to go into an exchange? Aren't we trying to do the same 
thing, which is to make sure everyone of all means available can in 
fact have insurance?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Absolutely. What our goal is is to provide affordable health 
insurance coverage for all Americans. There is no question that I would 
like to see that in my tenure here in this House, in this body. The 
problem we have is, how do you get there?
  I think the Democratic side is to expand the bureaucracy, more 
government control. IPAB is a perfect example, and the President spoke 
of that, and our Medicare patients. I think that is a terrible idea. As 
a matter of fact, it is a terrible idea. We want to do that. I know 
there is a way to do it. And, again, to hold the costs down. Remember, 
that is the problem.
  The gentlelady from Texas made a point that insurance premiums would 
go up. Insurance premiums are going up in anticipation of this 
particular health plan because, why? The government decides what you 
must have. You don't get to make that decision yourself. That is done 
by a bureaucrat, it is done by Congress or whoever decides what is in 
the plan.
  I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. I don't need in my family 
fertility coverage at my age. I have three grown children that are 
raised, educated, have health insurance, good jobs. But I probably will 
have to have that, because that is a plan that someone else will decide 
I need--to have fertility coverage. There are things in those bills 
that I don't need to have personally that I should be able to pick out. 
And I am just one example. People across this country ought to be 
making those decisions, not the Federal Government and not a 
bureaucrat.
  Ultimately, what is going to happen in our health care system is, 
because resources are finite, is that care is going to be rationed. Is 
the government going to ration it, or are a patient and a doctor going 
to make those health care decisions? I trust the patient and the doctor 
to make those health care decisions.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 15 seconds just to restate what my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, stated: If the Republicans 
are against the public option, if they are against the private option 
in the form of the exchanges, the only option left is pay more 
insurance premium. That simply is not acceptable to the American 
people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I guess I don't understand. I don't 
understand what our Republican colleagues want to accomplish here.
  They talk about free market. They talk about the need to provide 
options and opportunities. I think that is exactly what an exchange 
does, so I don't quite understand what this is all about.
  I was the insurance commissioner, the elected insurance commissioner 
in California in 1991, and we set up an exchange. Unfortunately, 
Governor Wilson vetoed it; otherwise, we would have had this exchange 
years ago. And 1 year ago, the California legislature, with the 
signature of a Republican, Governor Schwarzenegger, created an exchange 
based upon the Affordable Health Care Act and they want to put it into 
effect.
  The Republican proposal here on the floor would make it impossible 
for California to do what it wants to do; that is, set up a marketplace 
in which people have access to insurance. The notion being that, by 
creating the exchange, you spread the risk over many, many different 
populations so that, like a huge corporation, you have an opportunity 
as an individual purchaser or a small business to participate in a 
large pool and accept the lower rate of insurance.
  So what is this all about? What are you trying to accomplish here? Is 
it some ideology that you just simply can't stand the Affordable Health 
Care Act and you want to rip it apart piece by piece? Apparently so. 
And you just don't want to stop there. You are going after Medicare, a 
program that has been in effect for 42 years, that provides a universal 
insurance policy to anyone over 65. You are going to terminate 
Medicare. What is that all about? And give it to an insurance company 
and not have an exchange?
  So what is an individual going to do when they are 65 and possessing 
all kinds of preexisting conditions? Go without insurance? Be at the 
mercy of the insurance company? And, by the way, you want to repeal all 
of the insurance reforms, all of the protections that individuals have 
in the Affordable Health Care Act.
  This doesn't make much sense to me. I don't understand what your goal 
is here, except maybe to have some political scorecard you can say, 
yeah, we repealed the Affordable Health Care Act. Good for us. But what 
effect to the population of America? No exchanges? They are gone. No 
opportunity for small businesses to enjoy a large market, a large pool 
in which they can have a lower price? They are gone.
  Oh, I see. You can have an association health plan. I spent 8 years 
of my life chasing after association health plans that were frauds. 
They were out and out frauds, sold across State lines.

                              {time}  1300

  Is that what you want? Apparently so. I don't get it.
  I don't understand what the goal is here. The Affordable Health Care 
Act establishes an exchange allowing individuals and small businesses 
to be part of a large pool, to have four different options on their 
insurance. And you want to do away with it. I don't get it. You want to 
do away with clinics in schools so that kids can have access to health 
care. I don't understand.
  You have cut all the money out from the community clinics so that 
people have to go to the emergency rooms in a more expensive situation. 
What is this all about? I don't understand what the goal is that our 
Republican colleagues have in mind. The exchanges make sense. They 
create a marketplace for small businesses.

[[Page H2949]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The exchanges create a market, ladies and gentlemen. 
They create a market. It is a market-driven program in which 
competition occurs, competition between the insurance companies who 
have to offer quality and price.
  Have you got a problem with competition? Apparently so. You want to 
do away with the exchanges. Apparently what you really want to do is to 
hand the entire game over to the insurance companies, removing all of 
the controls, removing all of the necessity for them to compete, and 
apparently create some sort of an association plan so the public can be 
ripped off.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their 
comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in Tennessee, 17, 18 years ago now, we tried TennCare 
with sort of an exchange. We have had seven or eight different plans 
competing for your business, and in 10 years the costs tripled in our 
State because of the intervention of the government.
  Medicare, I want to speak to that very quickly. If you're 65 years of 
age and you have Medicare, you keep it. If you're 55, if the Ryan plan 
goes through, you keep it. If you're younger and you're a more affluent 
senior, like I am, you're going to pay for your health insurance. Yes, 
you are. If you're someone like me with a higher income, you are. If 
you're lower income and you're sick, you're not. The Federal Government 
will act like your employer does if you have the employer-based 
insurance. That part of the premium is paid by them. You pay your part 
of the premium. Again, it will be means-tested for a higher-income 
senior.
  Why do we think that will work? Because the only plan that I have 
seen this government ever pass that has come in under budget is 
Medicare part D. So I think there is a real chance for this to help 
hold costs down.
  Mr. POLIS. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's be very, very clear about this. The Republican 
proposal, the Republican budget proposal that is before this Congress, 
terminates Medicare as we have had it since 1965. For those young men 
and women who are not yet 55, they will never see Medicare. It's over. 
And instead of having Medicare, which is a guaranteed health insurance 
program, when they retire at the age of 65, they will be given a 
voucher that will be worth a percentage of what the insurance will 
cost. They will be thrown into the market at an age where they have 
preexisting conditions. And under the Republican proposal, there are 
no--there are no ways in which they are going to be protected from the 
insurance companies, who we know have one motive, and that is profit 
before people. Profit before people is the way it has been for the 
health insurance companies from the get-go, and that is precisely what 
the Republicans want to give us.
  We will not have it. While they're at it, they want to take those 
reductions in Medicare expenditures and continue giving money to the 
wealthiest people in America so that the wealthiest people in America 
can continue to enjoy ever more wealth, while the middle class enjoys 
ever more poverty. It is an abomination, and there is no way this 
Nation should abandon a proven program that for 42 years has provided 
quality medical care to seniors.
  Now, do you want to go after the cost in medicine? Then let's go 
after the overall cost of medicine, not deny tomorrow's seniors the 
benefit of Medicare. It is time to understand precisely what the 
Republican budget does. It terminates Medicare, while giving benefits 
to the wealthiest Americans. It should not happen.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to further discuss the benefits of school-based 
health centers. A wide range of research and evaluations have 
demonstrated that school-based health centers are cost-effective 
investments in our Nation's health care safety net for children and 
adolescents and also help improve academic performance.
  Now, each school-based health program is different, as they should 
be. Some of the services often include things like well-child and well-
adolescent exams, immunizations, treatment for illness or injury, 
including management of chronic conditions, like obesity, diabetes and 
asthma; and they also frequently include services like mental health 
assessment and treatment, prevention programs to help reduce smoking, 
to help reduce teenage pregnancy rates, to help reduce violence. They 
frequently include substance abuse counseling and nutrition counseling, 
as well as dental cleaning.
  These are services that prevent costly emergency services and 
hospitalizations later and help keep kids in school where they should 
be learning. Most importantly, stronger school-based health centers 
lead to stronger, more successful children and adolescents across the 
country. By bringing health care services to the children where they 
spend most of their day, at school, school-based health centers are a 
sensible and inexpensive way to deliver basic health care services to 
children all over the country.
  This unwise legislation undermines our fiscal condition by wasting an 
opportunity to leverage local funding. Providing capital support to 
school-based health centers is a Federal investment that is a good deal 
for taxpayers. That is because when we provide modest Federal support 
to school capital projects, local and State funding, in partnership 
with nonprofits and community health clinics, is spent on operating 
activities, staffing and other equipment. What a great value for our 
Federal dollar.
  Likewise, the value of this Federal investment is immense to local 
districts, many of whom are at their bonding capacity, who can't build 
school-based health centers on their own. However, many of these 
districts will benefit tremendously, and the students and families, 
from school-based health care clinics.
  The research is clear, Mr. Speaker. Over a decade of studies 
consistently find positive benefits of school-based health centers. 
These benefits include better student academic achievement, increased 
school attendance and reduced tardiness among inner-city children who 
receive counseling in the school-based health center, fewer school 
discipline referrals for students who receive mental health services, 
and increased learning readiness and parental involvement.
  As we discuss in this Congress reducing the learning gap, helping all 
students achieve, and ensuring that every American, regardless of where 
they live, has access to hope and opportunity through a quality 
education, school-based health care clinics are an important part of 
the solution.
  In Colorado alone, there are 46 school-based health care clinics in 
18 school districts, including one in the Summit County School 
District, which I represent, which is applying for funding under this 
program, and another applicant from Eagle County, Colorado. Eight other 
Colorado applications are going forward under this opportunity, as they 
are throughout the Nation.
  This is the initiative, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans are seeking to 
eliminate. They say they want a fiscally responsible budget and more 
jobs, but what we see instead is their priority to stop programs that 
save money and create jobs and increase student achievement and 
learning, like school-based health care centers.
  There can be no doubt about how the new majority is going about its 
business. There are no attempts to find common ground, like we have in 
House Resolution 9, and to work on ways to improve health care or to 
implement pooling mechanisms or to allow purchasing across State lines 
of insurance policies. Rather, we are dealing with press releases 
disguised as legislation that will neither pass the other body nor be 
signed into law.

                              {time}  1310

  That's not governance. That's immaturity. And the only Americans 
being

[[Page H2950]]

asked to sacrifice in the name of deficit reduction are those who have 
very little, if not nothing, left to lose and no real way to fight 
back. That's not leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House 
adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1366, the National 
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011. This bill, introduced by Mr. 
Lipinski of Illinois, will require the President to develop a national 
manufacturing strategy in order to boost traditional and high-tech 
manufacturing, spur American job growth, and strengthen the middle 
class.
  This bill passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 379-38 in the 
111th Congress. Manufacturing is a cornerstone of our Nation's economy. 
The U.S. Government, through its policies and programs, has major 
influence on our manufacturing base, and our national security, energy, 
and transportation systems rely on that base. We must unify government 
programs, leading to increased efficiency, and promote policies to 
promote our domestic manufacturing base to help our competitiveness in 
the global market.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass jobs legislation 
today, rather than legislation to increase the health care premiums 
that Americans pay.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. In closing on these two important bills that are now before 
this House, I say that H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214 are dealing with an 
issue that the former Speaker of the House envisioned when she said 
during the debate on the underlying health care bill, ObamaCare, that 
Congress needed to pass the bill so the American public could find out 
what is in it. Well, we're finding out what's in it.
  These two bills will address provisions that dictate and mandate 
billions of dollars of spending without any additional congressional 
oversight. To me, that is the critical piece. That is the critical 
piece and why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and pass this 
legislation, because this body must stand up and adhere to its 
institutional responsibilities of controlling the spending of our 
country because we are broke. That's what an army was sent here to do 
in November, and I'm proud to be part of that freshman class of 87 
Republican Members of the House that are coming here and looking at 
every dime, every dollar that is being spent here in our Nation's 
capital, because our Nation cannot afford it anymore, and no longer 
will we pass the buck on to our children and our grandchildren so that 
they have to pay this bill that we are no longer taking care of here in 
Washington, D.C.
  I would say that what we're trying to do with this health care debate 
is put back into the debate in front of the American public the focus 
of this new Republican majority, and that is we are going to deal with 
this problem by getting to the root of the problem. The root of this 
problem is increasing health care costs that are going through the 
roof. What we're dealing with here when we look at the underlying 
ObamaCare package is we're trying to minimize and mitigate health 
insurance costs. That's a piece of the puzzle. But the crux of the 
issue and the fundamental issue that we face is the increasing costs of 
health care, and that is what we are doing on this side of the aisle. 
And we are focusing day and night to make sure that we engage in 
responsible oversight, we strip the mandatory language of spending that 
is being created out of these bills, and we go forward so our children 
and grandchildren will have a greater future than we envisioned and 
enjoyed in our lifetimes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, while today our Nation continues to 
confront many challenges, I persist in believing that the primary 
challenge we must address is job creation and economic growth. So 
rather than considering more bills to chip away at minor provisions of 
the Affordable Care Act, we should be debating bills that will 
stimulate our economy, improve our competitiveness, and help people get 
back to work. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
previous question, and allow the House of Representatives to debate the 
National Manufacturing Strategy Act, H.R. 1366, a bipartisan bill which 
I was proud to reintroduce earlier this year.
  A national manufacturing strategy would help produce more private 
sector jobs and shore-up America's defense capabilities. My legislation 
would require the Administration to collaborate with the private sector 
to conduct a thorough analysis of the various factors that affect 
American manufacturing, consider the multitude of current government 
programs related to manufacturing, and identify goals and 
recommendations for federal, State, local and private sector entities 
to pursue in order to achieve the greatest economic opportunity for 
manufacturers in America. The strategy's implementation would be 
assessed annually and the strategy as a whole would have to be 
revisited every four years, so that we can reassess the global market 
and technological development, and plot a revised framework.
  Why is a national manufacturing strategy necessary? Because the 
federal government has significant and broad influence on the domestic 
environment for manufacturing and our national security, energy, and 
transportation systems all rely on our manufacturing base. Yet there is 
little to unify the various programs and policies that exist throughout 
the government that impact our domestic manufacturing base and its 
place in world markets. Unfortunately, for too long the government's 
promotion of manufacturing has been ad hoc, stovepiped and too reactive 
to economic downturns. Instead, we need to be proactive, organized 
across the government, and encouraging of those who want to pursue 
emerging markets and competitive technologies.
  Furthermore, it is a matter of international competitiveness for our 
Nation. A number of our economic competitors--including Brazil, Canada, 
China, Germany, India, Singapore, South Africa, Russia, and the United 
Kingdom, among others--have developed and implemented national 
manufacturing strategies. As a recent report from the Information 
Technology and Innovation Foundation, entitled ``The Case for a 
National Manufacturing Strategy'', stated: ``But most U.S. 
manufacturers, small or large, cannot thrive solely on their own; they 
need to operate in an environment grounded in smart economic and 
innovation-supporting policies . . . Unfortunately, while many other 
nations--and indeed many U.S. states--are taking steps to boost the 
competitiveness of their manufacturing industries, the United States 
lacks a clear, coherent strategy to bolster the competitiveness of 
manufacturing firms of all sizes and all sectors, a shortcoming that 
must be rectified if the United States hopes to `win the future' in 
manufacturing.''
  This legislation enjoys widespread, bipartisan support from a range 
of industrial sectors, labor, and the public. This bill passed the 
House last year by an overwhelming vote of 379-38, demonstrating that 
we have had the commitment to focus on the jobs and economy--a mission 
that we should be working to restore. This year, my legislation has 
also garnered the support of a bipartisan group of 26 of our colleagues 
who have cosponsored the bill, as well as the endorsement by the 
American Iron and Steel Institute, the Association of Manufacturing 
Technology, the AFL-CIO, the Precision Metalforming Association and the 
National Tooling & Machining Association. Finally, a bipartisan poll 
conducted last year for the Alliance for American Manufacturing found 
that 78 percent favor ``a national manufacturing strategy aimed at 
getting economic, tax, labor, and trade policies working together,'' 
and 90 percent want some action to revitalize manufacturing.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in calling for action on 
jobs and the economy. While we have witnessed some positive economic 
progress, we still have a long way to go in getting Americans back to 
work. We cannot continue to sit idly as our manufacturing base and 
quality, well-paying jobs depart for China, India or elsewhere. We must 
take action to provide a competitive and focused foundation for those 
who will continue to make it in America, and we can do so now by 
passing the National Manufacturing Strategy Act.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 236 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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

[[Page H2951]]

     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1366) to require the President to prepare a quadrennial 
     national manufacturing strategy, 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. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority 
     Leader or their respective designees. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 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.

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution if it is ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     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
     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
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     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
     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
     Reichert
     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 (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--185

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     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)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi

[[Page H2952]]


     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bilbray
     Broun (GA)
     Cassidy
     Emerson
     Giffords
     Heller
     Hultgren
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Marchant
     Rush
     Stark
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1340

  Messrs. HIGGINS, CLARKE of Michigan, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. McINTYRE, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ and Mr. FATTAH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 279 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 185, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     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
     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
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (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 (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     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)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     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
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bilbray
     Broun (GA)
     Cassidy
     Emerson
     Giffords
     Heller
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Rush
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1347

  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.

                          ____________________