[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2670-H2681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1250
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 45, REPEAL OF PATIENT PROTECTION 
                        AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 215 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 215

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 45) 
     to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and 
     health care-related provisions in the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
     equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs 
     and ranking minority members of the Committees on Education 
     and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  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.


                             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. House Resolution 215 provides for a rule to consider the 
full repeal of the flawed, ill-conceived and inappropriately named 
Affordable Care Act, a bill whose final language was written by staff 
on the Senate Finance Committee and the actual legislative text of 
which received not a single committee hearing or markup in this body. 
While many hearings and markups were held on other iterations of other 
health care bills, the legislation that was signed by the President 
received not a single moment of scrutiny in this House and contained 
none of the bipartisan amendments that were accepted during the markups 
of other health care bills, including H.R. 3200, which passed the House 
but was never considered by the Senate. As such, only a full repeal is 
acceptable, and that is what this rule provides for.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of debate, controlled by the Committees 
on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the 
Workforce. Further, the rule self-executes the Bachmann amendment, 
which provides for a clean repeal of the entire ACA, consistent with 
the provisions of the opening day rules package of this Congress. The 
rule further provides the minority one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  This approach, a full repeal, will give the House, particularly 
Members who were not here in the past two Congresses, an opportunity to 
have an up-or-down vote, an affirmation or a denial, of the Affordable 
Care Act.
  Americans should have the freedom to make their own health care 
decisions. In March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act was signed into law. It was drafted quickly and behind closed doors 
at the end of 2009--behind closed doors in the other body, in fact. It 
included secret deals, loopholes, drafting errors, and allowed entirely 
new Federal agencies to be created without congressional knowledge or 
oversight.
  The bottom line: it was not the way to achieve meaningful reform. In 
addition, the Supreme Court ruled last June that the law is, in fact, a 
tax. This is after President Obama continually told the American people 
that it was not a tax.
  The health care system in America needs reform, and it needs 
improvement; but the law that was passed will cost American taxpayers 
and patients millions of dollars. It will not improve care, and it will 
not make care more affordable. We need to start fresh and address the 
issues with commonsense improvements that will focus on the real issues 
at hand--creating a health care system that is focused on patients 
instead of payment, quality instead of quantity, affordability instead 
of cheapness, and innovation instead of stagnation. The first step is 
eliminating bad legislation that simply does not work and that today 
stands in the way of any real improvement. That is why, today, I 
strongly support the repeal of the President's health care law.

[[Page H2671]]

  The President did repeatedly tell us that the penalty associated with 
the individual mandate was not a tax. It was repeated several times in 
the run-up to this bill's being signed. In June, the Supreme Court 
affirmed that the only way that this bill could remain law was that it 
was, indeed, a tax, and Congress has the infinite power to tax. In 
fact, Congress can tax morning, noon, and night. It can tax the 
American people back to the stone age if that's what it wishes, and 
that's what the Affordable Care Act does. When millions are unemployed, 
this is, indeed, the last thing we need.
  It's not just the tax. It's the effect on premiums. Up on the Energy 
and Commerce Web site this week is a study showing how the Affordable 
Care Act is going to affect premiums in the individual market, in the 
small-group market, and in the large-group market; and almost uniformly 
those premiums are going up, and in some cases they are going up a 
staggering amount.
  Last summer, the Supreme Court's decision leaves in place a costly 
and unworkable health care scheme that is hurting America's families, 
that is hurting America's workers, that is hurting America's job 
creators, and that is damaging America's patients. We will all have to 
live with that ruling. If we do not repeal, then we will have to live 
with the law as written. The time has come to step up and do the right 
thing. I urge support of the rule.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the value of the Affordable Care Act, 
commonly referred to as ObamaCare, I must acknowledge the sad fact that 
this will be the 37th time in 29 months that the majority has voted to 
repeal or defund the law, and they know it will not happen. Recent 
estimates are that each vote to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care 
Act has cost $1.45 million in taxpayer money. So today's debate will 
bring the total cost of repeal votes to--wake up there--$53 million and 
counting.
  Now, while the majority wastes our tax dollars, think what we could 
do with $53 million. The agriculture bill we were all talking about 
this morning is ready to take $20 billion out of food stamps, feeding 
poor people, while we waste that kind of money here doing a bill month 
after month after month that we know is not going anywhere. Yet we 
don't have any positive agenda to put forward here. For the last 2 or 3 
months, all we've done are one-House bills that everybody knows are not 
going to get passed, and it really is a tragedy because a CBS study 
says it costs $25 million a week just to run the Congress--and how 
deplorable that kind of waste is with all the problems we have in the 
country.
  We are told that the freshman Republicans would like, once again, to 
have an opportunity to vote to kill health care. I wonder if the 
freshman Republicans, as I know the freshman Democrats do, wouldn't 
like to vote to repeal the sequester or to maybe do a jobs bill, which 
we haven't had in 2\1/2\ years. We are not going to do anything about 
the budget either when we've heard all the time, Why doesn't the Senate 
do a budget? The Senate has done a budget. The Senate has asked over 
and over again for the House to appoint conferees so that we can get 
the budget put together and pass it into law. No action there either. 
Then, because of the sequester cuts, at least 70,000 children have been 
denied access to early education, and thousands of cancer patients have 
been denied their regular cancer treatments.
  The majority says it is holding today's vote, as I said, so that the 
freshmen can repeal the Affordable Care Act. I wish to goodness that 
they would give them something that would really pass and something 
good to vote on.
  Instead of voting to repeal the sequester, the majority is voting for 
the 37th time to repeal a law--and this is very important--that has 
already done so much already. It has given 100 million Americans access 
to free preventative health care, procedures such as mammograms and 
colonoscopies. That's 100 million already. They are voting for the 37th 
time to repeal a law that saves seniors $6.1 billion in prescription 
drug costs already. They are voting for the 37th time to repeal a law 
that has provided 3.1 million young adults with health insurance 
already that they otherwise could not afford.
  The Affordable Care Act has been particularly beneficial for 
America's women. Did you know that prior to the passage of this law in 
eight States and in the District of Columbia, domestic violence was 
classified as a preexisting condition and you could be denied 
insurance? They were denied insurance because they had been abused and 
because, perhaps, they would be again.

                              {time}  1300

  Did you know that thanks to a practice called ``gender rating,'' 
women were charged as much as 46 percent more in premiums for the same 
level of insurance as a man? Maybe you didn't know that. But lots of 
women in the country are getting rebates for that very reason.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act, both of these discriminatory 
practices have been outlawed. In addition, the Affordable Care Act has 
already returned money to the pockets of millions of women thanks to 
the rebates required by insurance companies under the health care law.
  Finally, the Affordable Care Act outlawed lifetime and yearly limits, 
insidious insurance practices that capped the amount of health care an 
insurance company would provide. But because of health care reform, 
Americans no longer have to worry that they will be denied health care 
that they need simply because insurance companies refuse to pay for 
their continued care.
  And did you know that 85 percent of your premium dollar will go to 
health care and not to other things that the insurance company wants to 
spend it on?
  The majority has claimed that the Affordable Care Act is bad for 
America's small businesses. The truth is that for any small business 
that has less than 50 employees, it requires them to do nothing 
different, nothing at all from what they're doing today. But small 
businesses with less than 25 employees are eligible for a tax credit of 
35 percent right now. And on January 1, that tax credit will increase 
to 50 percent. You will get a tax credit on half of the health 
insurance you pay when you have under 25 employees.
  The majority has also claimed and will continue to claim that the 
Affordable Care Act was passed in the dark of night through a closed-
door process that denied their side of the aisle the opportunity to 
participate in the legislative process. This charge is categorically 
untrue. The Affordable Care Act was the product of nearly 100 hearings 
and 83 hours of committee markups, including both Republicans and 
Democrats making amendments. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both 
Democrat and Republican. There were 239 amendments considered in House 
committees and 121 that were adopted.
  And while some on the other side of the aisle charge that the final 
version of the law was rushed through the House, the final bill was 
available for 72 hours before any Members were asked to vote on it.
  In contrast, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which we're doing again 
today as I said for the 37th time, is being considered after no 
committee hearings, no committee markups, and under a closed rule. That 
means there will be no amendments on this bill. Even if one were 
sympathetic toward the majority's goal, the complete abuse of the 
legislative process should give every Member of this Chamber pause.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is just the latest in the majority's all-
out effort to undermine the process of implementing the health care 
law. Their efforts have taken many forms, but central to it all is 
their refusal to provide the necessary funding to fully implement the 
law and a gleeful willingness to criticize an implementation process 
that is underfunded and undermined at every single turn.
  Despite their best efforts, I believe that in the years to come, the 
majority will find that they stood on the wrong side of history, just 
as they stood on the wrong side of history when Social Security was 
passed and when Medicare came into being.
  Indeed, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act have already had 
their day in court. Last summer, the Supreme Court affirmed the 
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, putting to rest any false 
legal concerns that opponents had.

[[Page H2672]]

  With the constitutionality of the law no longer in question, one 
might expect opponents to criticize the law's impact on our Nation's 
finances. But here again, the facts will stand in the way. Over the 
last 3 years, U.S. health care spending grew at 3.9 percent. That, Mr. 
Speaker, is the lowest growth rate in 50 years. And according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care 
Act would actually increase our Nation's deficit by more than $100 
billion over the next 10 years. Please think of that and understand 
what they are trying to do away with today--the things that help you.
  Mr. Speaker, providing safe, secure, and affordable health care for 
our citizens has been the goal of both Republican and Democrat 
lawmakers for generations. As far back as Theodore Roosevelt, we have 
acknowledged the need to provide our citizens with a health care system 
that puts their health before industry profits, that has as good 
outcomes as other parts of the world provide for their citizens. We 
need to treat health care as a right for all, not a privilege for the 
lucky few.
  Under the leadership of a Democratic Congress, we managed to realize 
at long last this long-awaited goal by passing the Affordable Care Act 
through an open, deliberative, and thorough legislative process. And 
from reducing our Nation's health care spending to expanding health 
care to millions of Americans who could not afford it, the Affordable 
Care Act is succeeding.

  It is in this light that the majority's 37th vote in 29 months to 
repeal health care should be judged. And it's hard to judge their 
politically driven vote as anything other than a disservice to the 
American people, a waste of taxpayer money and a way to spread 
misinformation.
  I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule and the underlying 
legislation. And I reaffirm my pride in supporting the law that is 
already helping to save lives and already providing American people 
with secure and affordable health care. And after it is fully 
implemented next year, all Americans will benefit.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, now I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, Roger Williams.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of freedom and free 
enterprise, the hallmarks of our great American democracy. A government 
that places high value on these principles does not force its citizens 
to hand over their hard-earned money for a mandatory product, in this 
case health insurance. This is not how it's done in America.
  Mr. Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues rushed this 
bill through Congress more than 3 years ago. Democrats and Republicans 
can agree on one thing, that this is very flawed and is not even what 
Americans asked for in the first place. Even President Obama has signed 
into law seven bills that dismantle provisions of his health care law.
  Defying common sense, the President and Democrats and Congress 
continue pushing forward with implementation of this disastrous law. 
And who wants it? Members of Obama's own party are now doubting how the 
law will work. Some of the key players who wrote the bill don't even 
want it. Senator Max Baucus said the health care law is a train wreck, 
and Senator Jay Rockefeller said that it's overly complicated and 
beyond comprehension.
  Architects of this law don't want it, insurance companies don't want 
it, the majority of the public doesn't want it, organized labor doesn't 
want it, and as a small business owner of nearly 42 years, I can tell 
you that small businesses don't want it.
  No business owner would run their business like the President is 
running this government and this massive health care overhaul. I can 
say from firsthand experience that small businesses--the backbone of 
our economy--are literally hurting.
  As a job creator, I know how businesses can no longer hire. They 
can't take risks that would grow the economy. I've heard from people 
all over my district who have work available and positions ready to 
fill, but they can't hire anyone or else they risk going over the 
number of 50 employees and being subject to the ObamaCare employee 
mandate. Everybody wants to be at 49.
  How is this good for Americans and America?
  The struggling economy has already forced families to cut back and 
tighten their budgets. How does the President expect these hardworking 
taxpayers to pay an additional $3,000 each year for ObamaCare?
  I've had employees come to me in tears wondering how they're going to 
provide coverage for their families. And even the few Americans able to 
keep their current insurance will see their premiums rise by an average 
of 73 percent.
  Again, I ask, how is that good for America?
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to quote Patrick Henry. He 
claimed:

       The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to 
     restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to 
     restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives 
     and interest.

  Let's put an end to the chaos and do what's right for our families, 
our businesses, and our tax dollars. Repeal ObamaCare today--the 
quicker the better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Well, here we go again. In fact, I've lost count of how many times 
we've had to vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  The underlying legislation before us today would deny my constituents 
and the American people access to affordable health care. It would 
increase health costs and reduce benefits for millions of American 
families.
  It's particularly ironic that during Older Americans Month, we are 
here voting on a bill that will eliminate benefits to seniors, 
including preventive services and savings on prescription drugs.
  It would allow insurance companies to deny coverage to Americans with 
preexisting conditions, drop coverage when people get sick, reinstitute 
lifetime limits on coverage and charge people more based merely on 
gender.

                              {time}  1310

  The Affordable Care Act has already created long-lasting benefits for 
many of my constituents, including Theresa, a single mother of four 
whose youngest child is 20 and lives with a preexisting condition. 
Prior to the Affordable Care Act, Theresa was personally spending over 
$10,000 a year to pay for her care. Her daughter's medical condition 
prevented her from attending college. But thanks to the Affordable Care 
Act, she was able to be added back on to her mother's health plan. This 
has meant tremendous savings for Theresa, who was worried she might 
lose her home, along with the care her daughter desperately needed.
  A vote against this rule and against the underlying legislation is a 
vote to protect our constituents from unfair insurance company 
practices, to provide relief to Americans, young and old alike, to 
protect job growth and creation, and for a fiscally responsible future. 
It is time for this Congress to move forward, not backwards.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. And as a proud cosponsor of 
this bill to repeal ObamaCare, I think it is very important that we in 
this House have this vote. Yes, we've had this vote many times. I think 
it's important to have it again this Congress because so much more has 
come to light since the last time that this vote was held in the last 
Congress. What are some of those things? Well, of course, when Nancy 
Pelosi was Speaker, she famously said, ``You have to pass the bill to 
find out what's in it.''
  Well, we're seeing more and more every day just how many devastating 
things are happening in our economy because of ObamaCare. In fact, how 
bad is it? It's so bad that one of the Senate architects of the bill, 
Senator Max

[[Page H2673]]

Baucus, said: ``I see a huge train wreck coming down.''
  Now, when they were in the back room writing this bill, he was the 
guy with the pen. He wrote the bill in the Senate, and he said it's a 
train wreck coming down.
  Why would we want to do this to the American people? The system of 
health care that we have today has some problems, but why would you 
want to destroy the things that work? You fix the things that work.
  This bill, ObamaCare, is actually scheduled to increase health care 
costs dramatically for American families. In fact, what will it do to 
our health care system? And this is what families are finding out, all 
across not just southeast Louisiana, the area that I represent, but all 
across the country. This chart shows all of the different Federal 
agencies that come in between a patient and their doctor in health 
care. It used to be the patient talking to the doctor, and they made 
the health care decision. That was the sacred relationship in health 
care. Now you've got all of these Federal agencies.
  And who's at the top? The IRS. The IRS is the enforcement arm of 
ObamaCare. And, of course, just in the last few days we've seen the 
corruption at the IRS where they've literally gone and picked winners 
and losers, picked partisan fights, and literally tried to enforce the 
Obama administration's will, punishing the enemies of the Obama 
administration. This is not the agency that should be running health 
care.
  We need to repeal this law and fix the real problems in health care.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding, and for her extraordinary leadership. I rise today, Mr. 
Speaker, in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act and in 
opposition to the rule.

  Mr. Speaker, at a time when the American people would like Congress 
to focus their attention on increasing and growing the economy and job 
growth, we are instead, for the 37th time, involved in partisan 
politics.
  It is especially troubling that our Republican colleagues have chosen 
to celebrate National Women's Health Week by attempting to undo the 
important gains that were made for women's health in the Affordable 
Care Act. A study issued by the Joint Economic Committee while I was 
chair found that across this country, under the old status quo, an 
estimated 64 million women lacked adequate health insurance, and 39 
percent of all low-income women had no health insurance coverage at 
all.
  A repeal now of the Affordable Care Act could mean that millions of 
American women could find it nearly impossible to gain insurance if 
they had a preexisting condition, such as pregnancy. A repeal now would 
take away benefits women are already receiving such as free mammograms. 
A repeal now would mean the end of lower-cost prescription drugs for 
our seniors. A repeal now would yank young people between the age of 23 
and 26 off their parents' policies. A repeal now would send us back to 
the bad old days, to the days of preexisting conditions, gender 
ratings, and lifetime caps. It would mean that in this next year alone, 
over 1.9 million people would not have access to quality, dependable 
health insurance coverage.
  Vote ``no'' on this repeal.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield such time as she 
may consume to the author of the bill and a true leader in this effort, 
in this fight, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to listen to the clear, distinct voice of the 
American people. They have spoken loudly. They have spoken clearly. 
They heard the words of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she 
famously said we must pass ObamaCare before we can know what's in it. 
As my colleague, Steve Scalise, said, now we know what's in the bill, 
and now we know why ObamaCare is less popular today than even before it 
was passed for the first time. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, the more 
we learn about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.
  Even a Democrat, Max Baucus, who helped write ObamaCare said:

       I just tell you, I see a huge train wreck coming down.

  Well, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, 7 months from now when ObamaCare comes 
fully online, when people's health care premiums will soar through the 
roof, in some cases increasing 417 percent, what then, Mr. Speaker?
  We see this coming, just like the Titanic. We see the iceberg, only 
it's not just in a mist, shortly in front of our eyes. We have time to 
turn. That's why we're here. We're here to make the turn from a train 
wreck.
  So why not repeal that bill today? Repeal it in the House, but repeal 
it in the U.S. Senate, and force the President of the United States to 
repudiate his signature piece of legislation under his watch, which his 
own party calls a train wreck. It's now. Now is the time to listen to 
the American people.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, President Obama told us, he promised us that 
ObamaCare would fund insurance for people with preexisting conditions. 
As a compassionate people, we want to help people in this very 
difficult situation. But ObamaCare, the truth is that it is so poorly 
thought out that the funding for preexisting conditions has already run 
out. You heard me right, Mr. Speaker: less than 1 percent of the 
American people with preexisting conditions got the funding and now the 
door has been slammed in their face.
  And so I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what now? What are the remaining 99 
percent of the American people with preexisting conditions supposed to 
do now? Now they're told we've already run out of money, and the bill 
hasn't even fully come into effect, the centerpiece of compassion under 
this bill.
  And now we've learned that the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service--and 
I used to be a Federal tax litigation attorney, and our client was the 
IRS. I was involved with this agency. Now we've learned that the IRS, 
which is tasked with enforcing this very unpopular bill of ObamaCare, 
the IRS admitted they targeted Americans. They targeted conservative 
groups. They targeted Christians. They targeted pro-Israel people. They 
targeted people who are pro-business who are against accumulating debt. 
And, yes, they targeted Tea Party groups based upon their political and 
religious beliefs.
  And so this gargantuan government expansion known as ObamaCare will 
allow bureaucrats access to our most intimate, personal health care 
information. It will be a huge database that government is putting 
together and building right now.
  Under ObamaCare, the average American will pay more, they'll get 
less, and now they have to worry that their government may punish them 
because of their beliefs.

                              {time}  1320

  This is America. We don't do that in this country.
  We want real solutions. We want cures for Alzheimer's. We can have 
it. We want cures for Parkinson's disease. It's within our grasp. We 
want cures for juvenile diabetes.
  Spend our money there. We deserve better. The American people deserve 
better solutions and real reform in health care. Now is the time. 
Listen to the American people, and let's give them what they deserve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her 
extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights 
Repeal Act and the underlying rule.
  More than 3 years ago, following months of vitriolic debate and 
perpetual Republican talking points on socialized medicine and 
government-sponsored death panels, Congress passed, and the President 
signed into law, a historic health care reform bill that was designed 
to extend health care to millions of Americans and, over time, bring 
down the costs of health care.
  Opponents of this new law didn't give up. They took their case all 
the way to the Supreme Court, and they lost. In the House, they held 36 
votes to repeal or defund this law, and they failed.
  According to an analysis from CBS News, these empty attempts at 
repeal

[[Page H2674]]

have cost taxpayers a total of $52.4 million, even as my Republican 
friends argue for cutting important programs like Head Start and 
critical nutrition programs for those most in need.
  Yet here we stand, about to vote, for a 37th time, on repealing a 
bill that is already providing real benefits for our country.
  Contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle may argue, 
we've already seen a slowdown in the overall growth of health care 
spending since the enactment of this law.
  And just in my home State of Rhode Island, more than 170,000 women 
have guaranteed access to preventive services without cost-sharing; 
374,000 Rhode Islanders no longer have to worry about lifetime limits 
on their coverage; and 9,000 young adults have gained access to health 
care coverage because of this law.
  Let's reject this proposal, stop playing these political games, and 
get back to the really serious and urgent work of creating jobs, 
preventing gun violence, fixing our broken immigration system, passing 
a budget by regular order, and ending the sequester.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, President Obama and his legislative 
supporters promised us many things in ObamaCare. Some folks might call 
this misinformation, but today I call them whoppers.
  Whopper No. 1: we were promised ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. 
Instead, according to the report from the nonpartisan GAO, ObamaCare 
will increase the Federal deficit by $6.2 trillion.
  Secretary Sebelius, whopper No. 2: health insurance for all. She has 
now admitted up to 24 million Americans will lose their current health 
insurance.
  No. 3: we were promised it will not fund abortions. Yet for the first 
time in decades, Americans will be forced to fund abortions through 
Federal insurance subsidies.
  Whopper No. 4: it will create jobs. A recent nonpartisan study 
concluded that ObamaCare's employer mandate can put up to 3.2 million 
American jobs at risk.
  No. 5: we were promised it will strengthen Medicare but, instead, 
ObamaCare contains $700 billion in cuts to Medicare and allows a 
bureaucratic, unelected, unaccountable panel to make these massive cuts 
to Medicare.
  Whopper No. 6: we were promised that ObamaCare respects religious 
liberty. Nineteen courts disagree because the HHS mandate requires all 
employers to pay for insurance, including abortion drugs, irrespective 
of any moral objections.
  Whopper No. 7: health insurance will go down, they promised. But 
instead, every estimate, every estimate provided by insurance providers 
indicates premiums will increase anywhere from 20 to 400 percent.
  Whopper No. 8: it is not a tax. If it's not a tax, why does the IRS 
need 2,000 more agents just to implement ObamaCare? Because of the 21 
tax hikes included in the bill.
  And last of all and, most importantly, the biggest whopper of all: if 
you like your health care plan, you can keep it. My constituents, your 
constituents have shared real life story after story about how they 
will lose the coverage they like once the individual mandate goes into 
effect. And the CBO estimates up to 7 million Americans may lose their 
employer-sponsored health insurance plan.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to stop telling whoppers and start speaking 
the truth. It's time to repeal ObamaCare now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Patients' Rights Repeal Act. This is the Republicans' 37th callous 
attempt to derail health care reform.
  Rather than work to create jobs and to improve our economy, 
Republicans are focused on taking away key patients' rights and 
benefits that are already improving countless American lives.
  With this vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act, House 
Republicans are saying that they don't mind if insurance companies drop 
patients as soon as they get sick, or if our seniors can't afford their 
prescription drugs to stay healthy.
  Three years after the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, 
signed into law by the President, and upheld as constitutional by the 
Supreme Court, millions of Americans, particularly our Nation's women, 
are seeing meaningful protections for their health and well-being.
  As a cancer survivor and as a mother of three young children, this 
law isn't about politics for me. It's personal.
  When I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 41, 5 years 
ago, it was like my world was coming down around me all at once.
  My colleagues must understand, and we were reminded again this week, 
there is nothing in the world more gut-wrenching as a parent than not 
being able to assure your children that their mom is going to be okay, 
or that they won't have to worry about getting cancer someday 
themselves.
  I was fortunate to have exceptional health care coverage, but too 
many women in our country have never had the ability to see a doctor, 
and so many face true financial hardship with a diagnosis like mine.
  Over the past 5 years, I've had so many women come up to me and 
confess that they haven't had a mammogram in years because they can't 
afford the expensive co-pays or they fear the prohibitive cost of 
treatment. That is unacceptable in the United States of America.
  Imagine how many millions in our country face terrifying health care 
decisions every day. This Congress has the power to protect them from 
uncertainty, instability, and financial ruin. That power lies in the 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act, tools like free preventative 
care and cancer screening services that help save women's lives.
  We cannot waste another minute with more of these meaningless 
attempts to repeal a law that has already made a difference for so many 
of our constituents. For our children, and all families across this 
Nation, we must come together and work to implement this historic 
health care reform that is the law of the land and that is not going to 
be repealed.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the full repeal of the 
President's health care law. I believe we must repeal this law and 
replace it with patient-centered, market-oriented reforms that will 
improve patient care, broaden patient access, and reduce patient costs.
  From the beginning, the President promised that his health care law 
would improve the quality of health care for all Americans. He said if 
you wanted to keep your doctor, his plan was for you. If you wanted to 
keep your health care plan, his law was for you. He said that if you 
wanted lower insurance premiums, his law was for you.
  Well, the bill passed, and the people of Virginia's Fifth District 
are getting a full dose of it, and they don't like what they see. As 
I've traveled across Virginia's Fifth District, I've heard from our 
constituents, our Main Street businesses, our local governments, and 
our health care providers that this law is not living up to the 
President's promises.
  In fact, people are not able to keep the health care plans that 
they've always counted on. People are being hit with spikes in 
insurance premiums, and people are having to take second jobs because 
they can't afford to live on a 29-hour workweek.
  This repeal bill is important because it is an expression of the 
sentiment of the people I represent. They want real health care reform, 
not government mandates.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and support this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. I rise in opposition to the Patients' 
Rights

[[Page H2675]]

Repeal Act, the 37th such time that the Republican House leadership has 
had us consider this.
  Before I came to Congress, I was a prosecutor. And as a prosecutor, I 
would take my case, present evidence to the jury; the jury would reach 
a verdict, and the case would be closed. The same has occurred with the 
Affordable Care Act.
  In 2009 and 2010, this body debated the Affordable Care Act. Evidence 
that the Affordable Care Act would increase access to quality care was 
presented. Evidence about eliminating preexisting conditions was 
presented. The law was passed by a majority of democratically elected 
Representatives. It was signed into law by the President of the United 
States, and recently it was upheld by the Supreme Court. We had an 
election where the President and the candidate who ran against him 
talked about these, and they had two very different positions, and this 
President who signed it into law was reelected. The verdict on the 
Affordable Care Act is in. The case is closed.
  Mr. Speaker, the benefits are also real. In California, 5.6 million 
people will have access to health care.
  There are very serious issues facing our country: growing and lifting 
our economy, having a green energy policy that makes us independent 
from other foreign sources of oil, and passing comprehensive 
immigration reform. But this House Republican leadership is acting like 
a frivolous litigant wasting our time voting over and over and over--37 
times--to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The 37th time will not be a 
charm.
  The definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over 
and over and expecting a different result. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 45, and I urge the House Republican leadership to stop the 
insanity, and let's move forward on the issues that will grow our 
economy, make us independent from foreign sources of oil in how we find 
our energy, and fix a broken immigration system.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, Dr. 
Burgess, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me this 
time.
  We just heard the speaker talk about the definition of ``insanity,'' 
and Americans woke up the last few weeks and realized the definition of 
``insanity'' is giving massive amounts of information to thousands of 
new Internal Revenue Service agents who can use it as leverage over our 
lives.
  I hope that, despite the fact that this bill is increasing costs on 
individuals and businesses, at least we ought to agree we don't want to 
hire thousands of new Internal Revenue Service agents and give them all 
of this information that they can use as an abusive process over our 
lives. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Prevent 
IRS Overreach Act which would at least take the Internal Revenue 
Service out of this provision.
  I hope that we'll adopt this rule and we'll support the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.
  I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. I want 
you to see the face of those who have been served across America. They 
are, yes, low-income, some are impoverished, but many are middle 
income. In fact, there was an article in the Texas newspaper that said, 
part of what drives the need for health care are Medicaid, expanded 
Medicaid, which is part of this great bill, the Affordable Care Act, is 
the fact that people are impoverished.
  And so here is what my friends want to do today for the 37th time. 
They want to take away from 13 million Americans the health insurance 
that they need, that they were able to secure with rebates from the 
health insurance companies. They want to take away from 105 million 
Americans, 71 million Americans in private plans, who have received 
free preventative services. They want to be able to tell the women who 
needed mammograms and additional tests for breast cancer that you can't 
go in and get the preventative care that you need to save lives. Oh, 
yes. They want to tell 17 million children with preexisting disease you 
cannot go in anymore and be covered.
  The conversation over here is plain foolish. They're only talking 
about their economics--their economics of wealth. Yes, maybe their 
districts have not felt the pain of racial disparities which they're 
going to eliminate if they get rid of this bill. Maybe they are not in 
one of these States, 10 States like Texas that has 28.4 percent 
uninsured, along with the Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and many others, 
Florida, that have uninsured people who need this. Maybe they'll tell 
the 6.6 million children that have taken advantage of the law today to 
obtain health insurance for preexisting disease that they cannot do 
that, or maybe they'll tell the seniors that you can go back into the 
doughnut hole again.
  I don't know why we're doing this, but I will tell you that I see 
that lives are saved.
  I introduced an amendment to make sure that we didn't lose the 
federally qualified health clinics. When you repeal this bill, you will 
dash the hopes of those who have been walking into their neighborhoods, 
going into federally qualified health clinics and getting the good care 
that they need.
  All this is is spoiled grapes. That's what this is. Drink the wine 
and leave us alone, and make sure that we keep the Patients' Bill of 
Rights and Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Dr. Burgess, thank you for yielding.
  The ObamaCare law must be ripped out by its roots, and it needs to be 
replaced with something that makes sense for my patients and my 
colleagues so that we can deliver good quality health care.
  ObamaCare is a destroyer. It's going to destroy the doctor-patient 
relationship. It's going to destroy the quality of health care in 
America. It's going to destroy budgets: personal budgets, family 
budgets, business budgets, State budgets, and even the Federal budget. 
It's a big spending bill. We've got to stop this outrageous spending.
  I just got off the phone with our Governor, Nathan Deal, and he told 
me that the cost of health care for State employees in Georgia has gone 
up 12 percent because of ObamaCare, and it's going higher. I just got 
an email from a businessman in Georgia who said that his premiums have 
doubled since last year because of ObamaCare.
  We must rip it out by the roots and replace it with my Patient OPTION 
Act that's a market-based, patient-centered health care plan that will 
literally make health care cheaper for everybody in this country. It 
will provide coverage for all Americans, and it's going to save 
Medicare from going broke. ObamaCare is going to break the bank for 
everybody, and it just must be repealed and replaced with my Patient 
OPTION Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to respond 
to the previous speaker.
  I feel very badly about his constituent whose health care price has 
gone up, but I want to say that that's because the insurance companies 
raise those prices. ObamaCare is not yet in effect for small 
businesses.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm sorry, I haven't got the time. It's all allocated. 
But I will talk to you later about it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. It's ObamaCare that's running the cost up, not 
the insurance companies.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, it's not. It's the insurance coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal Act and the 
rule.
  Now, there's nothing wrong with working to improve the Affordable 
Care Act. We should work to make quality health care more affordable 
and more available to all Americans. But repeal is not a solution and 
has real and serious consequences for folks in Connecticut. Even worse, 
this vote is a tremendous waste of time when we

[[Page H2676]]

have serious work to do for our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the 37th time--the 37th time--Congress is 
voting to repeal health care reform.
  Five months after the tragic attack in Newtown in my district, House 
Republican leaders continue to refuse to allow a single vote--a single 
vote--on commonsense gun legislation to reduce gun violence. Instead of 
voting on enhanced background checks, a reform supported by over 90 
percent of the American people, Congress has now devoted 15 percent of 
its time to trying to repeal health care.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to stop wasting time on pointless 
political gamesmanship and to get to work for the American people.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa, Steve King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And as I listen to the gentlelady talk about enhanced background 
checks, it just occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we repeal ObamaCare, 
we can save more lives by bringing real health care reform to this 
country and restoring the doctor-patient relationship, providing 
incentives for research and development, and letting our health care 
system continue to modernize instead of freezing its development and 
atrophy, as it will, under a government-controlled program.
  As I listened to the gentlelady earlier offer her opening remarks on 
the rule for the Affordable Care Act, it occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, 
that it really isn't the name of it. It is the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, that long lingo that nobody knew what it was, so 
it was market tested and reduced down to the Affordable Care Act.

                              {time}  1340

  We know it's the Unaffordable Care Act, that's why we call it 
ObamaCare. It was passed by legislative shenanigans, and it passed in 
the dark of the night. They had to split some of it out and pass it by 
reconciliation because even the voters in Massachusetts, to replace 
Teddy Kennedy's seat, elected a Republican to put a block to ObamaCare. 
That's an extraordinary event to happen in America. Eighty-seven new 
freshman Republicans came into this Congress as a result of it; the 
Blue Dog Democrats became essentially politically extinct because of 
ObamaCare; and the promises that were made were obviously not kept.
  We remember the President's promises. There were three big promises 
that he made: if you like your doctor, you can keep him--or her. No, we 
all know that's not true.
  If you like your insurance and your insurance premium, you get to 
keep it. Your premiums aren't going to go up. We know that's not true. 
The costs have gone up. The premiums are going up. There was a 
discussion about a 73 percent--apparently an average number that the 
earlier gentleman spoke about--premium increase with ObamaCare. I can 
tell you that those numbers that say up to 400 percent, they are real.
  Two and a half months ago, I sat down with the health insurance 
underwriters. They gave an example of a 28-year-old woman who's 
satisfied with her share of her individual policy premium today at $200 
a month. If she smokes, she would see the premium go up from $200 to 
$800 a month. It is a malignant tumor that's metastasizing on American 
liberty. It must be ripped out by the roots and completely repealed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' 
Rights Repeal Act.
  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different 
result, that's insanity. This week, House Republicans are trying to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time. Thirty-six failed 
attempts weren't enough?
  More than 105 million Americans have had arbitrary lifetime coverage 
caps lifted because of this law. Up to 17 million children with 
preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage. And more than 
6.5 million children up to the age of 26 now have coverage on their 
parents' plan, about half of whom would otherwise be uninsured.
  Why would anyone want to roll all of this back? Why would anyone 
waste 43 days--as Republicans have done so far--to repeal a bill that 
does so much for the American people? It's not smart; it's not logical. 
More importantly, it's not right.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing America needs 
to know that simplifies this debate very clearly. The only people 
exempt from ObamaCare is the President, the Vice President--the 
committee staff that wrote the bill exempted themselves from the bill, 
and the Federal agencies that are implementing ObamaCare are exempt 
from the very law that they're shoving down the throats of the American 
people.
  The Democrat majority that passed this bill over the objections of 
the overwhelming majority of the Nation didn't even bother to read it. 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to see what's in it. 
They have no concept of what was in it.
  I had the chance to ask the financial genius Charles Schwab recently 
what are two things we could do to really create jobs and grow the 
economy. He said: repeal Dodd-Frank and repeal ObamaCare--two of the 
most destructive pieces of legislation ever passed by the United States 
Congress, done by a Democrat majority that didn't even bother to read 
it and exempted themselves from it. The committee staff that wrote the 
bill exempted themselves from it. The Federal agencies that are 
implementing it are exempt from ObamaCare, but they stuck it on all the 
American people, including the Members of Congress. We're all under it, 
but President Obama and Vice President Biden are not. And that's all 
you need to know.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. To respond to what we just heard--and none of us are 
exempt; I don't know what in the world that's all about--I would like 
to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. The House deserves a vigorous debate on any question. It 
also deserves the factual record.
  The President, the Vice President, and the employees of the executive 
branch are subject to the law in the following way: because they 
receive coverage through their employer, their employer is subject to 
the rules of the law.
  The second thing I want to make very, very clear: no Member of the 
House of Representatives is exempt from this law in any way, shape, or 
form. None. As far as the committee staffs are concerned, the committee 
staffs that you refer to are members of the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Program. Nothing in the law changes that. Just as any other 
person in America who is insured by their employer, they have to live 
by these same kinds of rules. This just isn't true.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. The committee staff is exempt. The President of the 
United States is exempt.
  Mr. ANDREWS. No, they're not.
  Reclaiming my time, this is just not correct. There is no one exempt 
from this coverage.
  Does the gentleman agree that he is not exempt from this coverage? 
Are you exempt?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would yield to the gentleman. Are you exempt from this 
law, sir?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Members of Congress are covered, but the committee 
staff that wrote the bill are exempt.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey controls the 
time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The committee staffs who were involved in writing the 
bill are Federal employees subject to the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Act.
  There have been many distortions about this law; this is just one of 
them.

[[Page H2677]]

  I want to point out that one of the earlier speakers said that 
there's a GAO study that says this increases the deficit by some 
imaginary number. The scorekeeper around here for deficits is the 
Congressional Budget Office. They say it reduces the deficit by $100 
billion.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the status of time for 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), for his consideration.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we're having a vigorous debate about 
President Obama's health care bill. The reason why we're doing this is 
that there have been seven or eight different provisions already that 
have been repealed from this bill in the last 2 years because either it 
was fraud, it was onerous, or it would not work.
  The reason why we are on the floor today is not to waste time, but to 
give the American people, through representative government, an 
opportunity to say we now know more about that bill that was not read.
  Here's what we know: we know that it is a trillion-dollar-plus 
spending bill--trillion dollars that would have been in Americans' 
pockets to make their own decisions about their health care, but now it 
is flowing to the Federal Government. And what it is doing is 
arbitrarily causing our country--and this is based upon the laws that 
are already in place in this country of what will happen to the debt of 
our country. President Obama and Democrats have led us to trillion-
dollar deficits every single year the President has been in office.
  This is just the beginning. At some point our country will cease to 
become what it is--a great Nation--because we will join the likes of 
Eastern Europe. And it is directly because of tax increases and 
ObamaCare, which limits the size of small business and businesses that 
want to get under this threshold of 50 employees. So it arbitrarily 
will diminish the dreams of Americans who want to build their business 
from a small business to a larger business simply to avoid the IRS, who 
will be in their business about health care.
  So the Rules Committee is, rightfully so, bringing this bill to the 
floor--another time--for the American people who are saying--not only 
publicly in polls, but through their Representatives--this is not a 
pathway we want to keep going on.
  We have to stop the bankruptcy of American business. We need to go 
back to where we have a vibrant economy, where college graduates at 
least stand a chance to be able to have a job and to move our country 
forward.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.

                              {time}  1350

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to vote 
on what the country really needs right now: a bill to create more 
American jobs. The SEAM Act would help to not only create more jobs, 
but more American-made products, by creating tax credits for productive 
American manufacturers in the energy innovation industry.
  I ask the majority to stop these political games--this bill has had 
no committee action and no discussion; it is simply brought back over 
and over--and work with us for a change to put some smart policies 
forward.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I do not believe that the Affordable Care Act is perfect. I also do 
not believe that Congress serves the American people by engaging in a 
partisan fight on this floor for the 37th time.
  Is the law perfect? No.
  Can we--and should we--come together, stop fighting, and get back to 
the work of the people? Yes.
  There is broad agreement in our country that the Affordable Care Act 
is not perfect. So let's start there. Instead of fighting, Congress 
should work together to fix this law and make it work for Americans.
  Today, I believe our time is best served by working together to 
create that which our country so badly needs--jobs. Hardworking 
families are waiting for us to deliver on a promise that brought many 
of us to this Chamber--a jobs bill that puts Americans back to work.
  My amendment, the Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act, creates 
high-paying clean-energy jobs. It supports American businesses that 
create innovative energy products and hire workers here in America. 
This is a jobs proposal to help American businesses grow and stay 
competitive in a global marketplace. I want businesses in my community 
to put their innovative energy products right into our economy.
  Energy innovation is quickly becoming one of the world's largest 
industries. Countries all over the world purchase billions of dollars 
worth of innovative products. I want to see those products made in 
America, not China. I want Arizona and America to be globally 
competitive.
  By defeating the previous question, we have the opportunity to 
restore U.S. manufacturing jobs. Our constituents sent us here--
Democrats and Republicans alike--to work together and get Americans 
back to work. My proposal does just that.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by 
saying I ran a small business for 25 years before entering Congress, 
and I always carried health insurance on my employees. But the required 
coverages under ObamaCare are far in excess of the coverage I ever 
carried. We never carried mental health coverage. We didn't carry 
substance abuse coverage. We didn't carry vision or dental.
  Guess what, employers? You won't have that choice anymore. The 
Federal Government will dictate to you what coverages you must carry on 
your employees.
  My colleagues across the aisle speak about jobs. This act has had a 
horrible stifling effect on hiring in this economy. Seventy percent of 
small businesses indicate this act has created doubt as to whether or 
not they will hire additional employees. Small businesses are cutting 
hours of their employees from 40 back to 30 so that they won't be 
considered full-time employees under this act.
  Hardworking Americans are suffering today because of this act. 
Doctors, physicians, are already dropping out of the system. It's been 
estimated that up to 15 percent of hospitals will close if this act is 
ultimately implemented.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if my colleague 
has any more speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. I have an additional speaker, and then my close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Speaker, I'm from northern California, which is the 
land of the original 49ers. That was based on the Gold Rush of about 
160 years ago.
  Now I see we are creating a new group of 49ers, and it is certainly 
not heading towards a gold rush for the country. These new 49ers are 
the people that have to limit the jobs of their small business to 49 or 
less in order to stay out of the clutches of ObamaCare.

  We also are creating a group called 29ers, who have to see their 
hours cut to less than 30 hours because their employer is out of 
options; again, because of ObamaCare.
  As a farmer, I know that when things aren't going right with the farm 
you have to learn to cut your losses. In this situation here, we need 
to have the good sense to not spend good money after bad. It is time 
that we take a good, hard look at this Obama health care takeover and 
decide to repeal it.
  In California, we seem to have a lot of boondoggles, to include the 
high-speed rail project, which prices could quadruple over its original 
cost. We are seeing the same type of boondoggle with this Obama health 
care takeover.
  Let's do the right thing to preserve jobs and preserve people's 
health care plans as they are and not have this boondoggle upon our 
entire country.

[[Page H2678]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to be very succinct. What you have heard today is probably the 
same kind of debate that took place in this Chamber on both Social 
Security and Medicare. Those two programs, Medicare operates with a 2 
percent overhead. Most private insurance operates between 20 and 25 
percent. It is a bargain, and it has lifted millions of seniors in this 
country out of poverty.
  This bill will provide for us the type of health care that we deserve 
and that we need based on outcomes and not on a plethora of tests each 
doctor gives.
  I am absolutely astonished on what we have heard today, but there are 
a couple of things I really want you to remember. One, today we have 
spent $53 million on this debate on just to repeal this law--$53 
million. If you are frugal at all--and I am--believe me, that burns me 
up. I can think of many, many things we can use that for.
  Almost 7 million jobs have been created in health care since this 
bill passed--7 million. Four million more are to come. The two things 
that we really want to do is provide good health care and good jobs in 
this economy.
  For heaven's sake, let's not see this bill up again. Take a good, 
hard look at it. See all the benefits in it for all of your 
constituents. You don't want to go home and tell the women and tell the 
seniors and tell the people with preexisting conditions that you don't 
care about them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  It was, indeed, a very dark day 3 years ago in March when this bill 
was brought to the House floor, 11 o'clock at night, 11:30 at night, 
and passed this House of Representatives after members of the 
Democratic conference, the majority Democratic conference, were lied to 
by the administration about an executive order to prevent the funding 
for abortion. That is what tipped the balance. That is what brought 
those last few wavering votes.
  How did we get to that point? Well, throughout 2009, throughout the 
year, the House had, indeed, considered the health care question. My 
Committee on Energy and Commerce did have a markup on H.R. 3200. They 
took a lot of amendments. Some amendments I offered; some amendments 
were bipartisan. All of those amendments that were accepted by the 
committee at some point evaporated at the opening of day, whatever 
happened over in the Speaker's Office, and they were gone. The health 
care bill which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed out at 1,000 
pages grew to 2,000 pages in the Speaker's Office, and all the 
Republican amendments were stripped out.
  And then what happened? Well, H.R. 3200 died. It is gone. Nobody has 
ever seen or heard of it since. That was the House health care product.
  What, in fact, happened was, down at the White House in July of 2009, 
there were secret meetings that took place. There were six special 
interest groups that met with the President's folks down at the White 
House--Nancy-Ann DeParle, Rahm Emanuel's brother. These are the folks 
that constructed the basis of what has now become known as ObamaCare.
  The insurance companies don't hate this law. They like this law. Look 
what has happened to their insurance stock since the law has passed. 
They have doubled or tripled in value. That is because they had a seat 
at the table when this thing was crafted, and it was crafted according 
to their liking. But who really wrote the nuts and bolts of the bill 
was the staff on the Senate Finance Committee between Thanksgiving and 
Christmas.

                              {time}  1400

  H.R. 3590, which passed the floor of this House 3 years ago, was a 
bill that had never had a single hearing in the House of 
Representatives. It had never had a markup in a single House committee. 
H.R. 3590 had passed under suspension in the House of Representatives 
in July of 2009 as a housing bill. It went over to the Senate to await 
further action. The further action was an amendment offered by Harry 
Reid to ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert,'' and the 
health care language was inserted. It came back over here and 
languished for 3 months. Nobody read it. Then the Speaker forced it 
through the House of Representatives a few minutes before midnight on 
March 18 of 2010.
  That's why we're having this debate today. Sure, there have been 
other efforts to repeal this. There was a full repeal in January of 
2011, remember? Republicans won 84 House seats, so it was natural to 
have a repeal vote. After the Supreme Court had their ruling, it was 
important to reiterate that position. Now we're doing it again.
  The other repeal votes that have happened, many of them have been 
bipartisan. The 1099--you guys liked that? Do you want that paperwork 
requirement to come back? The President signed the 1099 repeal. What 
about the CLASS Act? You all voted for that. I didn't. The CLASS Act 
was repealed on the fiscal cliff vote. The President signed it. The 
repeal votes that have happened in between have been relatively minor 
in scope, perfecting amendments, if you will.
  The fact of the matter is you can't perfect this thing. It was a dog 
at the beginning, and it's a dog at the end. We ought to do the right 
thing. Let's bring up the bill. Let's pass it. Let's send it over to 
the Senate.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and 
the underlying legislation because this bill would repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. The American people have been engaged in a debate 
over universal healthcare for six generations.
  In 1949, Harry Truman became the first sitting President to propose 
universal healthcare for all Americans as part of the ``Fair Deal.''
  On March 23, 2010, with the stroke of President Obama's pen, the 
American people received this part of the ``Fair Deal.'' This bill did 
not become law in the dead of night, but in the full process this body 
affords serious consideration of legislation. There were committee 
hearings, staff and member meetings, amendments and a final vote in 
both the House and the Senate before it was sent to the President's 
desk.
  The Affordable Care Act has been affirmed to be law by every means 
provided by our nation's constitution:
  On March 21, 2010, the House passed the Affordable Care Act following 
Senate Consideration of the bill.
  On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act 
into law.
  On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion 
in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, affirming 
the constitutionality of the law--leaving intact the majority of the 
incentives to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Americans.
  The Affordable Care Act was a central issue in the Presidential 
election of 2012. The candidate who signed the Affordable Care Act into 
law won the election by 51.1 percent of the popular vote and 62 percent 
of the electoral vote.
  Why are we here for the 37th time in three years to again vote to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act?
  It is difficult to recall any series of actions within a short time 
period that have overcome every hurdle that our system of government 
has to establish and affirm that a law--is the law of this nation.
  I believe Mr. Speaker it is important to remind new members of this 
body and those who are closely watching this debate that the Affordable 
Care Act is law. People living in each of the Congressional Districts 
represented in this body are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.
  The leadership of this Congress may want to give new members of 
Congress the opportunity to tell the people back home that they voted 
to repeal ``Obamacare.'' Unfortunately, they are also toying with the 
emotions of people who know that without the Affordable Care Act they 
have no other option for healthcare.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans are already seeing 
lower costs, better coverage, and patient protections that Republicans 
want to repeal:
  13 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates sent to 
them from their health insurance companies last year.
  105 million Americans have access to free preventive services, 
including 71 million Americans in private plans and 34 million seniors 
on Medicare.
  Millions of women began receiving free coverage for comprehensive 
women's preventive services in August 2012.
  100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare 
coverage.
  Nearly 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer 
be denied coverage by insurers.
  6.6 million young adults up to age 26 have health insurance through 
their parents' plan, half of whom would be uninsured without this 
coverage.
  6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have already saved $6.1 
billion on their prescription drugs.

[[Page H2679]]

  3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under 
Medicare, and
  360,000 small employers have already taken advantage of the Small 
Business Health Care Tax Credit to provide health insurance to 2 
million workers.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act 3.8 million people in Texas--
including 2.2 million seniors on Medicare now receive preventative care 
services. Over 7 million Texans no longer have to fear lifetime limits 
on their healthcare insurance. Texas parents of 300,731 young adults 
can sleep easier at night knowing that their children can remain on 
their health insurance until age 26.
  The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas 
residents that their insurance companies will spend 80 percent of their 
premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from 
their insurance company.
  In my state, there are 4,029 people who had no insurance because of 
pre-existing conditions, but today the Affordable Care Act has provided 
them with access to coverage. The Affordable Care Act means that many 
Texans are free of worry about having access to healthcare insurance.

  However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not 
completed. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will 
become available to our citizens. Insurance companies will be banned 
from:
  discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition
  charging higher rates based on gender or health status
  enforcing lifetime dollar limits
  enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits
  In 2014, access to affordable healthcare for the self employed or 
those who decide to purchase their own coverage will be easier because 
of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. There will be a one stop marketplace 
where consumers can do what Federal employees have done for decades--
purchase insurance at reasonable rates from an insurer of their choice. 
This will assure that health care consumers can get the care that they 
need from the medical professionals they trust.
  I do not believe that the healthcare law is perfect--but what is 
worse--is the imperfection of the House Leadership in allowing this 
continued rehashing of a debate over a law that is not going away.
  Congress should be working to mend the Affordable Care Act where we 
believe it can be improved, and not end healthcare security for 
millions of our constituents. Healthcare is the difference between life 
and death for too many of our constituents. The bill that needs to be 
amended or rejected is the one before us: H.R. 45.
  For this reason, I offered amendments before the Rules Committee to 
address minority health disparities, medical payments to small 
physician owned hospitals, and a plan to study the impact of the 
healthcare law.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 1 would have removed all of the bill 
text following the enacting clause of the legislation, which would have 
ended this exercise to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This legislation 
is so bad it cannot be salvaged and the United States would be better 
off without it.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 2 would have ensured full Medicare 
reimbursement to all hospitals including physician owned hospitals with 
at least 100 beds, provided they could produce reliable records to 
document their claims for reimbursement.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 3 would have authorized additional 
funding to establish Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). These 
centers are the last line of defense provided in the bill to make sure 
those living on the margins of society--the poorest of the poor had 
access to reliable healthcare. FQHC programs would be based in clinics, 
community based health care centers and pro-active outreach programs 
that target the homeless or marginally housed with information on how 
to get access to good healthcare.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 4 would have expanded state use of the 
Medicaid option of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care law when 
the uninsured rate of qualifying residents of a state exceeds 20 
percent. States wishing to opt-out of Medicaid would have the option of 
submitting a plan to reduce the rate of uninsured to 20 percent or less 
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment would 
have benefited Texas enormously since it leads the nation in uninsured 
residents at 28.8 percent. In fact Texas has held this number 1 
ranking, of the state with the highest number of uninsured residents, 
for the last five consecutive years.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 5 would have established a program to 
conduct studies of minority health disparities. The Amendment directed 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report 
of findings regarding minority health disparities and make 
recommendations on how disparities may be reduced.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 6 expressed the Sense of the Congress 
that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law in the 
United States of America. The amendment enumerated each step that made 
it the law including a decision by the United States Supreme Court. The 
amendment then directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
report to Congress on the impact of the law on those it is intended to 
help. The Amendment would have not allowed this Congress to revisit 
repeal until it had research on the impact of the law to guide its 
further deliberation of repeal.
  This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it has work that 
should be taken up to restore workers, their families and communities 
to sound economic health.
  The healthcare law has many benefits--but I will redouble my efforts 
to mend the parts that need additional work and educate my constituents 
so that they can take advantage of the benefits of having access to 
healthcare.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting 
no on the Rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

   An amendment to H. Res. 215 Offered by Mrs. 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. 
     1424) to require the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary 
     of Labor to establish the Make It In America Incentive Grant 
     Program, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided among 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. 1424.


        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

[[Page H2680]]

     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. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). 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. Mr. 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 adopting House Resolution 215, if 
ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                               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
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     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)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     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
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     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--193

     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
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     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
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     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)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     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)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Labrador
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Quigley
     Wagner

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. LANGEVIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. 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 226, 
nays 192, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     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)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     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
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed

[[Page H2681]]


     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
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     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
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     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
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     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)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     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)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brooks (AL)
     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Labrador
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pearce
     Quigley
     Wagner
     Walberg

                              {time}  1440

  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.

                          ____________________