[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

     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

[[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.

                          ____________________