Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 57 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2267-H2275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1549, HELPING SICK AMERICANS NOW
ACT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 175

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. 1549) to amend Public Law 111-148 to transfer
fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016 funds from the
Prevention and Public Health Fund to carry out the temporary
high risk health insurance pool program for individuals with
preexisting conditions, and to extend access to such program
to such individuals who have had creditable coverage during
the 6 months prior to application for coverage through such
program. 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. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill,
it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-8. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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 Texas is recognized for 1
hour.

General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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.
House Resolution 175 provides for a structured rule for consideration
of H.R. 1549. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally
divided by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

[[Page H2268]]

The rule makes in order two amendments, one Republican, one
Democratic, with 10 minutes of debate for each. Further, the rule
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
bill. The underlying legislation is a needed piece of relief for the
hundreds of thousands of Americans who were promised by their President
that they would be covered under the Affordable Care Act's Preexisting
Condition Insurance Plan and then were told, as of February 1 of this
year, Sorry, we're closed. This is one of the many promises the
President made that he has failed to uphold.
In response to the President's failed promise, Chairman Joe Pitts
introduced H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Act, to continue to
provide insurance for those Americans who are most in need of immediate
care. And to pay to give those most vulnerable patients insurance and
care, we use the Prevention and Public Health Fund, an allocation of
money that should be going to help patients, but it's instead being
used for administrative costs to set up the exchanges that won't be
online for some time now and for glossy brochures to extol their
virtues. The money could be used to help people now, and that's why
Republicans are here today.
The Affordable Care Act created the new Preexisting Condition
Insurance Plan, which was, arguably, duplicative of actions taken by 35
States prior to 2010 that were operating risk pools, that were
operating re-insurance programs and served over 200,000 Americans.
It has been shown that State-based programs play an important role in
lowering costs across markets and then providing coverage options for
those with preexisting conditions. In some States, those plans merged
with the Federal plan into an existing high-risk pool. In other States,
like Texas, the Federal plan operates in parallel to the State's pool.
But whether the States merged their pools, adopted a State-
administered preexisting plan, or whether the Federal preexisting plan
is the only option, this program is the only answer for those who have
found themselves unable to purchase insurance on their own because of a
medical condition.
Shortly after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services estimated that the creation of this program would result in
roughly 375,000 gaining coverage in 2010. However, to date, only
107,000 individuals were enrolled in the program as of January 1 of
this year.
On February 15 of this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services announced to States that the agency was suspending enrollment
in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program. Very little was said of
the fact that this program was intended to help individuals with
preexisting conditions through the 1st of January of 2014.
Despite lower than expected enrollment, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services announced that it will no longer enroll new
individuals in the program, and it will bar States from accepting new
applications because of their financial constraints.
According to a report from The Washington Post:

Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health
insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be
blocked from the program that was actually designed to help
them.

On March 5, along with Republican leadership and the leadership from
the Energy and Commerce Committee, we wrote to the President. We let
him know that this was not right. We let him know that, while we may
have designed the preexisting pool differently, Republicans have
supported risk pools, and that he could easily use funds from other
accounts in the Affordable Care Act like the Prevention and Public
Health Fund. But so far, the response to our letter from the President
is zero.
I support prevention activities. As a doctor, I know it's better to
keep a person well than to treat an illness; and to anyone across the
aisle, we've demonstrated this in the past. If we want to modernize
government programs where they have fallen behind private insurers and
employers in avoiding disease and getting people more involved in their
health care, we're here to talk.

{time} 1350

But the prevention fund has been used in a haphazard way, with no
unified vision and in many ways that are quite questionable, with the
mere hope, with the mere aspiration that 10 years from now we can look
back and think that we've made a difference. But it's really something
I cannot support when we are $17 trillion in debt and sick Americans
are being turned away from an insurance coverage that they were
promised by the President.
As a physician, ensuring those with preexisting conditions have
access to quality and affordable health insurance is a priority. As
much as I believe that the Affordable Care Act stretched the bounds of
constitutionality--and I still do--I was concerned that if the Supreme
Court had invalidated the law last summer, those who were in this new
Federal preexisting pool would have had the rug pulled out from under
them and they could have been barred from merging into their States'
pool because of the previously provided coverage.
That's why, to ensure that that did not happen, I was prepared to
answer that challenge, had it arisen, by introducing legislation prior
to the Court's decision to provide States with the financial backing to
decide how best to provide coverage for this population through some
type of risk pool, reinsurance, or other innovative method.
I will also note that unlike many of the complaints that the
Preexisting Condition Insurance Program has faced, that bill, as well
as the bill that we are considering today, did not require those with
preexisting conditions to jump through hoops or to remain uninsured for
6 months before being eligible for coverage. On the other hand, instead
of making sick Americans a priority, the administration is telling them
to just give us 10 more months. Well, what a striking comparison.
There are always stories of those who have done the right thing and
insured themselves and then, for whatever reason--falling on bad luck
or hard times--have fallen out of the system, usually because of a job
loss, they get a medical diagnosis, and when their employment status
changes, they find themselves forever locked out of coverage. Those
were the stories that people thought of when they did say they wanted
something done about this issue.
I might add that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the
administration and congressional Democrats vastly oversold this
concept. We were told time and again there were 8 to 12 to 15 million
people wandering the country with some type of preexisting condition
that were excluded from coverage. It's interesting that now, here we
are 3 years later, spending $5 billion and they've enrolled a hundred
thousand people in the program. But it's a hundred thousand people with
a very compelling story.
We were told by the American people they wanted us to fix this
problem, they didn't want us to screw up the rest of the country's
health care, and they wanted some help on cost. But, unfortunately, we
failed on every one of those counts.
Since the administration has cut off enrollment, how many people have
signed into or aged into the 6-month exclusion that would otherwise be
able to sign up? The fact is we don't know. But we had a hearing 4
weeks ago where we heard from some of these people. They do have
compelling stories. How many were awaiting coverage but are now told,
especially in States where the Federal preexisting program is the only
option, you just wait until 2014. So do the best you can with what
you've got between now and then.
I will admit that many of the current State-based programs are
underfunded and lacking the ability to meet their needs. It is costly
to deal with this population of patients. I was prepared in the bill
that I offered last summer to authorize $30 billion to provide
coverage. House Republicans supported $25 billion in our substitute to
the Affordable Care Act back in November of 2009.
H.R. 1549 will redirect $3.5 billion from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund and then eliminate the fund in 2016. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that, unlike the authors of the Affordable Care
Act, we have provided enough funding to meet the needs

[[Page H2269]]

of the program through the end of the year, while ultimately reducing
the deficit. Furthermore, once the ``train wreck'' of failed
implementation occurs, the amendment that Mr. Pitts plans to offer
would provide an escape valve for Americans with a preexisting
condition by providing States with a block grant to fund State high-
risk pools.
The majority is serious about funding these programs and dealing with
the issue, and those cost are a drop in the bucket as to what the
Affordable Care Act will cost our country in the future. But those
efforts recognize that for those who do need insurance and are truly
uninsurable in the market, it will be costly but we will make the
decisions that set our priorities straight.
Where the President's response was to tell the people tough luck, not
to prepare for needing more money or transfer funds out of other parts
of the Affordable Care Act or to look for efficiencies or mismanagement
in the preexisting condition program or even approach Congress for
funding, dead silence from the administration. Well, here Republicans
will lead and ensure that we help sick Americans now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We begin this week the way we've begun every week since January:
spinning our wheels.
As we speak, sequestration is hitting communities across our country.
Flight delays have started, Head Start programs are turning away
children, and unemployment benefits are being curtailed. Despite the
calls from me and all my Democratic colleagues to stop the
sequestration, the majority refuses to act. In fact, the ranking member
of the Budget Committee, Representative Van Hollen, has come four times
to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would repeal
sequestration, but the majority has rejected it every single time.
The majority has also left the job of passing a budget unfinished.
With budgets passed by both the Senate and the House, it is now time to
finish the job, and for the majority that constantly calls for regular
order and concerns itself with no Senate budget, they now refuse to
appoint the conferees. And they must, if we're going to get the budget.
Instead of taking meaningful action on these two important issues,
the majority is proposing a bill that is nothing more than a political
gimmick. As everyone knows, there's no chance that the Senate will
consider this bill. Even if it did, the President's senior advisers
have stated that they will recommend the President veto the bill.
In the short history of the 113th Congress, I have been repeatedly
dismayed that the leadership of this Chamber has refused to bring forth
meaningful legislation that has any chance of becoming law; and today
is a telling example of the majority's failure to lead.
In news reports earlier this morning, we were told that today's bill,
dubbed by reporters as ``CantorCare,'' may even be pulled before it
gets a vote. One Member of the majority was purported to say that
today's bill does nothing but shift money from a program he doesn't
support to another program he doesn't support. And, indeed, given the
fact that not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, it
seems incongruous to me that they are now here today with great
bleeding-heart concerns about the people with previous conditions that
keep them from being insured.
So given the multiple reports of dissent within the majority, I have
to ask, If no one supports this bill, then what are we doing this
afternoon except, as I pointed out earlier, what we do every week? Even
if we continue to move forward on the bill, it is already clear the
legislation is solely designed for political gain. For while the
majority claims that they want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act,
their intent is clear: they want to repeal the law.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
testified before the Senate Finance Committee where she was criticized
by GOP Senators for using her legal authority to fund the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As Secretary Sebelius
replied in her testimony, Congress' failure to pass a budget has forced
her to take the independent action, which she's allowed to do, in order
to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It's as simple
as that. In the face of an unproductive Congress, Secretary Sebelius
has done everything she can to provide the lifesaving health care to
the American people.
While reporting on Secretary Sebelius' testimony, Washington Post
columnist Ezra Klein explained the majority's approach towards the
Affordable Health Care Act. In part, Mr. Klein wrote:
``Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on ObamaCare, it
goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and
keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part, by
refusing to authorize the needed funds,'' as they did in this case. I
think it was $1.5 billion.
``Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the
law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014. In other
words, step one: create problems for ObamaCare. Step two: blame
ObamaCare care for the problems. Step three: political profit.''
The legislation before us is little more than a continuation of these
games.

{time} 1400

If the majority were making a serious attempt to expand health care
coverage, they wouldn't be funding their proposal with money from a
different program in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the
majority wouldn't be removing $4 billion from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund. This is a fund that is already helping States research
ways to reduce instances of cancer, obesity, and heart disease.
Preventive health measures are vital to reducing the cost of health
care in the United States because we know it is always cheaper to
prevent disease than to treat it. In an age where more than 33 percent
of our population is overweight or obese, when heart disease is the
number one cause of death and the number of diabetes cases continue to
grow, including children, gutting our Nation's only Federal preventive
health program is not a responsible budget decision; it is simply an
underhanded attack to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one program at
a time.
Finally, the majority's newfound concern for people who are uninsured
because of preexisting conditions might be more believable if they had
allowed one of the numerous commonsense amendments presented to the
Rules Committee to come to the floor. Among the amendments were
responsible proposals to cover Americans with preexisting conditions by
ending tax breaks for Big Oil, ending subsidies for owners of corporate
jets, increasing taxes on cigarettes--a preventive health measure in
its own right. Proposals like these would expand health care to those
who need it while protecting the preventive health measures included in
the Affordable Care Act. It is truly unfortunate that, in yet another
restrictive process executed by the majority, these amendments were
denied a vote on the House floor.
The majority and the press have made it clear that today's bill is
not a serious effort, but a political gimmick that has no chance of
becoming law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and
the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
(Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHFUS. I rise today in support of the rule, H.R. 1549, the
Helping Sick Americans Now Act, and the Pitts amendment.
President Obama's health care law is a train wreck. We learn more
every day about its failures. H.R. 1549 addresses a problem with the
law's provision for those with preexisting conditions. The bill takes
millions of dollars that the administration intends to spend on
advertising its failed law and instead helps some of the sickest
Americans get health insurance. Not only that, the bill will also end
the ObamaCare slush fund and reduce the deficit.
H.R. 1549 is a win on all fronts. We should applaud Chairman Joe
Pitts

[[Page H2270]]

and Congresswoman Ann Wagner for bringing this commonsense solution
forward.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we will be doing, as I said, a previous
question amendment to this rule to hold a vote on the Put America Back
to Work Act, and I would like to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in opposition to this
rule and for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can
substitute Mr. Connolly's bill for this bill, which will mean we will
substitute something that will grow jobs from something that will waste
time, not because those with preexisting conditions aren't worthy of
our consideration--and, in fact, were considered in the Affordable Care
Act and will have, as of January 2014, some real protections, not just
high-risk protections, some real protections for them and their
families.
The previous speaker said ``this train wreck.'' This train wreck has
already benefited millions of people: millions of seniors, millions of
women, millions of people with preexisting conditions, millions of
students, millions of young people who couldn't get insurance but can
stay on their family's policy, millions of people who didn't have their
benefits capped. Millions of people have already benefited.
The Republican Party continues to oppose. They want to see this bill
be a train wreck and are doing everything in their power to destroy the
tracks, everything in their power to make sure it doesn't work, make
sure that hundreds of millions--yes, hundreds of millions--of Americans
won't be benefited by bringing down cost and making insurance available
to millions of people.
Just like the little boy who took the lives of his two parents
complained to the court, ``Give me mercy because I'm an orphan,'' they
are destroying the tracks that have been constructed to give Americans
health care assurance.
Now, let me say, if we vote against this previous question, we will
have an opportunity to consider Mr. Connolly's bill. That bill will be
consistent with the Make It In America agenda--job creation, not
wasting time.
We're going to do a bill on Thursday and Friday that we could do in
10 minutes--totally noncontroversial; it's about helium. We're going to
take 2 days to do that bill; it could be done in 10 minutes. We are
spinning our wheels, as the gentlelady suggested.
One bill that will be something that we can do for America and jobs
as part of the Make It In America agenda is H.R. 535, the Put America
Back to Work Now Act, sponsored by my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly). It would permanently extend the Build America Bonds program
to help State and local governments leverage private capital to finance
infrastructure projects--jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the
gentleman has expired.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Build America Bonds have been strongly supported by
mayors, city managers, county legislators, and State officials from
both parties--a bipartisan support for this bill. At the local level,
it is a bipartisan solution that we know works because these bonds were
used effectively in 2009 and 2010 before they expired.
When it comes to making investments in our Nation's infrastructure,
we should be able to support local governments that want to attract
manufacturing and invest in making their communities safer, cleaner,
and more secure.
By the way, if we create these jobs, the probability is these people
who get these jobs will have health insurance and will be served, as
the doctor would like, as I would like--hopefully.
But let us not continue to waste time on a bill that we know has a
deeply divided Republican Party--as we're going to see on this vote,
I'm sure--and will not get through the Senate and will not be signed by
the President. We're just wasting our time here--political messages.
By the way, you've garbled your message pretty badly, as I understand
from Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks.
So vote against the previous question. Vote for building America and
growing jobs.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute.
You know, on the subject of wasting time, it was 6 or 7 weeks ago
that Chairman Pitts sent a letter to the President saying: What are you
proposing to do about this? This was not something that was in the
plan. You promised something that was different. What are we to tell
people who are now calling our committee and asking us how you're going
to respond to this?
The President chose not to respond to that letter--it's been 6 or 7
weeks--but, boy, it didn't take him 24 hours to turn around a Statement
of Administration Policy that said they would veto this bill should it
pass the House. That's another reason for me to be for it.
But, look, in this Statement of Administration Policy, it says: The
Affordable Care Act forces most insurance companies to play by the
rules. Well, I think this House has an opportunity today to say to the
administration: Play by the rules.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the ranking member for your hard work on these
issues, and I stand before this House to ask that all Members reject
this rule.
I had an amendment, which was not approved, which is germane to H.R.
1549 and follows CutGo and would have prevented defunding of the
Prevention and Public Health Fund. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee
rejected this amendment in order to keep this bill purely about
political posturing.
My constituents sent me here to work together to solve problems, not
to relitigate legislation which has been adopted by Congress, approved
by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the American people
support.

{time} 1410

The Prevention and Public Health Fund, among other things, helps
reduce minority population health disparities and supports health care
for chronic and costly conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and
cancer. There are medically underserved communities in my district and
across the country that need better access to care.
My amendment would prevent siphoning of resources needed to reduce
health disparities among minority populations. During the 112th
Congress, the House voted repeatedly to cut this very program. Now the
Rules Committee has rejected my amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. We need an open
process, not more political gamesmanship that hurts the American people
who need access to quality health care.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
It takes me back to when the Affordable Care Act passed this House
and the tumultuous time in March of 2010. I had 18 amendments in the
Rules Committee the night before that. The ranking member may remember
that. None of those amendments were made in order. Look, if that's the
yardstick by which we're going to measure, we've got a long way to go.
But I need to respond to something that was said by the minority
whip. He referenced the Appalachian train wreck. These are not my
words. These are words that were used by a senior Democratic committee
chairman about this bill. And then just today, breaking news, I'm
handed an article from Politico, another senior Democrat, chairman of
the Health Committee over on the Senate side, is putting a hold on the
administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
nomination.
And why is that hold being placed? An aide said that the Senator
objected because CMS was using Prevention and Public Health Funds to
pay for the health law implementation; the very reason we're here
today.

[[Page H2271]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my dear friend from New York, the ranking
member of the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleague to oppose the previous question so
we can bring up a proven jobs bill for consideration, rather than
rehash the same old critiques for the 36th time on the Affordable Care
Act.
Just last week, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston warned
that if job creation doesn't pick up soon, we run the risk of long-term
unemployment becoming a structural rather than cyclical problem within
our economy. Despite more than 6 million new jobs being created in the
last 4 years, the lingering effects of the Great Recession continue to
be a drag on the labor market. Unemployment in the construction sector,
particularly, is nearly double the national rate, with hiring down 2
million from its peak in 2006.
I have introduced the Put America Back to Work Act, H.R. 535, which
would permanently reauthorize the successful Build America Bonds
program at a more revenue-neutral rate. In just 2 years, that program,
Madam Speaker, supported $181 billion in community infrastructure
projects in every State of the Union and created thousands of new jobs.
Every dollar of Federal investment leveraged $41 in private sector
funds to help our State and local governments recover and construct the
needed infrastructure throughout the country. Local governments issued
more than $275 million in new bonds, with one of the largest projects
completing a missing segment of a cross-county parkway in my district
that now links major employment centers.
Reauthorizing Build America Bonds is part of the President's Rebuild
America Partnership initiative, and it is part of the Make It In
America agenda put forth by Steny Hoyer, our minority whip. More
important, it has the strong support of investors, local governments,
State governments, and construction companies throughout the United
States. Build America Bonds helped provide 36 percent of all municipal
bond sales back in 2009-2010 when, literally, municipal bonds had
stopped being issued.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the
previous question so we can bring up H.R. 535. Let's do something for
America, its localities, its States, its crumbling infrastructure.
These investments reap large and long-term returns. Look at the
interstate highway system, a gift that keeps on giving 65 years later.
Defeating the previous question will allow us to come together
finally on a bipartisan basis and do something for our country. Build
America Bonds is an idea whose time has arrived.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
There's nothing that has been more damaging to job creation in this
country than the first 2 years of the first Obama term. During that
time, with vast majorities in both the House and the Senate, the anti-
employment, the outright hostility to the productive sector of American
society, was palpable. People responded to that in very predictable
ways, so they hunkered down.
And then you come throw the wet blanket of the Affordable Care Act.
What did that do to job creation? It killed it in this country, and it
is killing it today.
If you want job creation in this country, you will provide some
stability, some sanity, to allow those people who are still in that
hunkered-down modality that they've been in since the first Obama
administration was sworn in, allow them a chance for real economic
recovery. That's why it's important to divert those funds from the
Prevention and Public Health Fund, help those people with preexisting
conditions, and, yes, we may get some sanity out of the administration
on the implementation of the health care law if we do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of defeating the previous
question. Putting people back to work is our number one priority.
Mr. Connolly's bill, which is part of the Make It In America agenda,
will strengthen our economy by creating jobs and spurring innovation
throughout the American manufacturing sector.
One area where we must assert world leadership is in clean energy
technologies. This is why I have introduced the Clean Energy Technology
Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act, legislation that is part of
the Make It In America agenda. This bill will help clean energy
technology companies access the world market and ensure these companies
have the resources they need to export their products. Let's face it,
the clean energy technology industry is growing rapidly. New jobs will
be created, if not here, then in places like China and Germany.
In my home district of Sacramento, we have over 200 clean energy
companies, the majority of which are small businesses. Clean World
Partners is a local company that is converting everyday items like food
and waste into energy. Altergy Systems manufactures fuel cell power
systems. These small business owners want to expand their manufacturing
operations and export their clean energy technologies to foreign
markets, but they need our help, and they need it now.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and immediately
take up the Connolly bill, which is part of the Make It In America
agenda, to show the American public we are serious about investing in
our economy.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The last Congress we had this debate over and over again, which
obviously culminated with the significant findings in our Committee on
Energy and Commerce on what happened with the energy company called
Solyndra. The moneys that were pushed out the door by the Department of
Energy in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, those moneys
were poorly spent and unwisely invested. And what did we get for that
investment? More debt.
Here we are faced with a condition in the Prevention Fund where these
dollars are going to be pushed out the door hiring navigators.
Remember, part of the Affordable Care Act was to absolutely remove
insurance agents and brokers from the environment, and now we're going
to populate the environment with these navigators that are going to
help sell people health insurance, and they're going to be paid for out
of the Department of Health and Human Services with the prevention
fund. It doesn't sound like prevention to me. I think we ought to
prevent that from happening.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question.
When I came to the Congress 4 months ago, I didn't really anticipate
that we would be arguing over legislation that was passed 3 years ago.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think it's 2010. They are
spending all of their time debating bills from years past.
ObamaCare was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed
by the President. That means it's the law. That didn't stop
conservatives. They have tried to amend, gut, defund, investigate, and
sue ObamaCare into oblivion. And they failed because Americans support
progress and reform.

{time} 1420

But ObamaCare seems to be on their messaging calendar this week, so
we're stuck with it until Friday. But what happened to last week's
Republican message or to even last month's messaging?
Just ask yourself: Isn't it odd that the Republicans aren't saying
that we need to pass a budget anymore?
Earlier this year, the House majority was going on and on about the
need to pass a budget. For months, my colleagues asked: Why hasn't the
Senate passed a budget? Why hasn't the Senate passed a budget?
Guess what? The Senate passed a budget.
So why is the House majority refusing to go to conference?

[[Page H2272]]

I'm sure Senator Reid gets some amusement from calling Speaker
Boehner's bluff and watching the Republican caucus squirm, but this
back-and-forth is a waste of time.
Let's get past debates from 3 years ago and get on with our work. Our
time is precious. The House should appoint conferees and pass a final
budget and get on with addressing the real crisis our Nation faces--
jobs.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Since the gentleman wasn't here in the spring of 2010 when the
Affordable Care Act passed, he probably didn't hear the utterance of
the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who famously, from that
chair, stood up and said, ``We've got to pass this law to find out
what's in it.''
Here we are a little over 3 years later, and we're still finding out
what's in it. Yes, the law is the law--the law has passed; the law is
signed--but what has happened since that time is this torrent of
regulations that has come out of the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel
Management--all of those Federal agencies charged with implementing
this failed product. Now, we can argue all we want about settled law
being settled law, but rulemaking is going on even as we speak. New
rules are coming out. New rules are being promulgated.
Look at the Essential Health Benefit Rule. Why did the administration
hide the ball on that one until 2 days after election day? Because they
were afraid of what the public's response would be when they saw what
that rule actually said. It turns out that most of the Nation's
Governors said, We don't want any part of this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as it takes me
to read this message. It needs to be answered, and I want everybody in
America to listen up. You've been told it's a job-killing bill and that
it has caused all this grief. Let me say:

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the United
States has added more than 6 million private sector jobs. The
health care industry alone, which many opponents of the law
predicted would face job-killing new regulation, has added
more than 750,000 jobs.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of defeating the previous
question so that the House may bring up Representative Connolly's Put
America Back to Work Act as part of the Make It In America legislative
package.
Make It In America is a comprehensive jobs plan that aims to
reinvigorate our ailing manufacturing sector and bring innovation and
high-skilled, high-wage jobs back to the United States, and it invests
in training the skilled workforce needed to support manufacturing in
the 21st century.
We have an infrastructure crisis in this country, Madam Speaker,
which is why I introduced the Bridges to Jobs Act as part of the Make
It In America package.
Do you know there are about 70,000 bridges that have been classified
as ``structurally deficient'' in our country? Leaving these bridges in
their current state of disrepair poses a grave threat not only to our
safety but also to our economy. This act provides each State with $10
million in grants to put Americans back to work by repairing our
crumbling bridges. Not only will this legislation put Americans back to
work and bolster our ailing economy, it will also ensure the safety of
the millions who use these bridges each and every day.
I urge my colleagues to support this crucial investment in our
workforce, our economy, and our safety. Let's defeat the previous
question so we can bring this bill back up.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute.
I think it's important for Members of this body to understand one of
the things we're talking about today. It's section 4002 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. In my copy, it's found on page 466.
This delineates the outline of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Section A: The purpose is to establish a Prevention and Public Health
Fund.
That all sounds good. It's to be administered through the Office of
the Secretary to provide for the expanded and sustained national
investment in the maintaining of public health. All good as it sounds.
Then the funding section. The funding section is important because
it's unlike other sections of law. Yes, it started small with literally
a half billion dollars in fiscal year 2010. It escalated from there,
and by next year, this fund will be up to $2 billion a year. That's
self-replenishing in perpetuity. That's until the Earth cools another
time or the Second Coming. It's $2 billion a year forever.
Now, the use of the fund is the next section. That is telling because
there is broad authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to transfer these dollars to other areas she wants. That is what leads
to the problem. That is what leads to the difficulty with this section.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more
requests for time? I have none, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. I will go as long as the gentlelady wants, but I guess I
have no more speakers other than myself.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record the
Democratic amendments that were disallowed last night from the Rules
Committee.
In closing, Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot today, but I think
probably one of the most important things for America to know--because
you hear constantly how many jobs this bill is going to be killing--is
the fact that we have produced 6 million new jobs, 750,000 in health
care alone.
So the most important thing we can do for Americans with preexisting
conditions, which is the subject today, and for every American seeking
quality and affordable health care is to support the full
implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the proposal
put forward by the majority today is an attempt to dismantle a crucial
part of that important law.

Summary of Democratic Amendments Not Made In Order by the Rules
Committee for H.R. 1549--Helping Sick Americans Now Act

(Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

Listed in Alphabetical Order--Prepared April 24, 2013

Amendment #4
Sponsor: Capps (CA)
Description: Removes the public health and prevention trust
fund as a pay-for and instead pays for the bill by ending the
section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas
production.

Amendment #5
Sponsor: Green, Gene (TX)
Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program
that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by requiring a
minimum term and a remainder interest greater than zero for
new Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs)

Amendment #10
Sponsor: Horsford, Steven (NV)
Description: Requires the HHS Secretary to transfer all of
the monies in the Fund for the next four fiscal years to the
PCIP program except those monies from the fund that are used
for reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Amendment #1
Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)
Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program
that the underlying bill does, but is paid for through a 4
cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes.

Amendment #2
Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)
Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program
that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by continuing
the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by
increasing the per-barrel amount that oil companies are
required to pay into the fund by four cents.

Amendment #3
Sponsor: Schakowsky (IL)
Description: Extends funding for reopening enrollment under
the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program (PCIP)

Madam 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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2273]]

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, as the gentlelady mentioned, we've heard a lot today.
I think I've said over and over again how I, unequivocally, oppose
the Affordable Care Act and would like to see it forever dismantled and
thrown on the dustbin of history. Guilty as charged. That is what I
would like to see, but that's actually not what we're talking about
today.
We're here today to talk about the President's promise to help people
with preexisting conditions obtain health insurance, and it has been
one of the few areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats
over the last several years. House Republicans have urged the President
to work with us on a solution to this issue, but all we've heard from
the White House has been silence. So, today, we are offering a
solution:
The bill transfers funds from an unnecessary slush fund and, instead,
prioritizes the Nation's most sick and vulnerable who have been denied
coverage and who have been the victims of the Affordable Care Act's
broken promises. This bill does not provide more money to government
health care programs, but instead it helps those who are in desperate
need have access to privately run health insurance. Instead of
continuing to use the Prevention and Public Health Fund to prop up the
Affordable Care Act's flailing exchanges, we would use the money
allocated for public health to actually help sick Americans.
If we do not act, the administration will continue to spend this
money on heaven knows what: neutering programs, pickle ball--whatever
the heck that is--and programs that are rife with potential for fraud
and abuse to support their own failing implementation plans. Instead of
further increasing this Nation's $17 trillion deficit, we can pass this
bill that will provide health care to the sick and will reduce the
deficit at the same time.
In the end, it's not about the money. It's about America's patients.
The President should be embarrassed. His political bait-and-switch is
not working. Instead of putting the care of the sick first, you tell
them, Sorry, Sister, we're closed. Come back in 10 months.
Ten months, a week, a day may be the amount of time some of these
patients have to get treatment or else face the consequences of the
progression of their illnesses.

{time} 1430

America's doctors and hospitals will be there, and they'll always be
there. But why deny them the means to get their services paid for with
insurance coverage?
Mr. President, your health bill fails this country, and, most
importantly, you have failed the thousands of sick Americans who can't
get health coverage because you think implementing the health care law
is more important than taking care of the people who you promised to
take care of.
So today we can end the use of the slush fund and use it to actually
help people. A vote for this bill is a vote to help sick Americans now.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support
the passage of H.R. 1549.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 175 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

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.
535) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend the Build America Bonds program. 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 Ways and Means. 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 H.R. 535.
____

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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may 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. BURGESS. With that, Madam 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 ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 175, if
ordered, and motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 360.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 121]

YEAS--228

[[Page H2274]]

Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--192

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Cook
Culberson
Dingell
Flores
Hinojosa
Lynch
Markey
Miller, George
Polis
Smith (NE)
Tierney
Veasey

{time} 1458

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico 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.
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 189, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 122]

YEAS--225

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--189

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)

[[Page H2275]]

Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Bass
Carter
Cook
Culberson
Dingell
Flores
Hinojosa
Lynch
Markey
Meng
Miller, George
Polis
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Smith (NE)
Tierney
Veasey
Yarmuth

{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.

____________________