[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2160-H2167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3826, ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND
AFFORDABILITY ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118,
SUSPENDING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PENALTY LAW EQUALS FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 497
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any
greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility
generating units, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
113-40. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the implementation
of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual
health insurance mandate. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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 gentlewoman 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
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Res. 497.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 provides for consideration of
two bills, one of which addresses the country's worsening health
insurance situation due to the Affordable Care Act; the other addresses
the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to cripple our economy
with costly regulations which have dubious health benefits.
The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill,
controlled by the primary committee of jurisdiction. The committee made
in order every amendment submitted for consideration to H.R. 3826, the
Electricity Security and Affordability Act, including three amendments
offered by Democrats and five amendments offered by Republicans.
Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on
each bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the
legislation. This is a straightforward rule for consideration of two
very important bills.
H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a
bipartisan response to the Environmental Protection Agency's
wrongheaded approach to our energy future. It was carefully crafted by
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and the Republican
chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Ed Whitfield from
Kentucky. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
acknowledge within its greenhouse gas regulations that different
sources of fuel--such as natural gas, such as
[[Page H2161]]
coal--require different approaches to the regulatory sphere. Further,
it prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from unilaterally
imposing new regulations on existing power plants--those power plants
that are already up and running, providing heat to our Nation, which is
currently under the throes of a significant cold snap. This limitation
exists until Congress has weighed in and passed a law specifying an
effective date for the regulations to begin.
Finally, as is just good government, the bill requires strengthened
reporting requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency.
One of the most frustrating parts of the EPA's new venture in
regulating our existing energy infrastructure is that the EPA has
actively blocked proper congressional oversight from receiving the
science and calculations used in crafting these new costly regulations.
That simply must end. If the Environmental Protection Agency is
proposing new regulations because they believe they will truly make
Americans healthier, let them share the data. Let them share the data
with the United States Congress so it can be peer reviewed. Both the
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have
continually been ignored when requesting such data. That is
unacceptable. That must end. This legislation is a step toward bringing
accountability to an agency that for too long has run roughshod over
our economy.
The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4118, Suspending the
Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act, addresses the
disparity that President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have created
between big businesses, which have been given a reprieve from having to
comply with the mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and individual
Americans, who have been given no such help by this President. Just
this week, the press reported that the administration will delay yet
another provision of the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurers to
continue offering health plans that do not meet the Affordable Care
Act's minimum coverage requirements. It is becoming so commonplace for
this administration to waive or ignore provisions--by their own
admission, this is their signature law, and they continue to waive
provisions. The American people cannot seem to get an even break, and
no one even seems to notice anymore. There is little doubt that this is
exactly what the President is hoping for.
In the last 8 months, the President has delayed or modified overly 22
provisions in his signature health care law. We are all familiar--we
have all seen the headlines: delays in the preexisting program; delays
in the employer mandate; delays in the reporting requirement; changing
the rules under which Congress has to buy insurance; delay, delay,
delay, in his own law. The President has been quick to fix parts of the
law that have political consequences for his allies and to protect his
own talking points.
Yet, where is the President's protection for the American people?
Under the health care law, Americans who don't have health insurance
and refuse to purchase a government-approved insurance policy will face
an annual fine--an annual fine--that increases every year.
However, purchasing a government-approved plan also means you have to
pay big premiums. You are forced to navigate a dysfunctional Web site.
You may lose the doctor you like and place your personal information in
jeopardy on an unsecure Web site.
Today, Republicans are offering a legislative solution to help
Americans get out from under the crushing weight of the so-called
Affordable Care Act. H.R. 4118, also known as the Simple Fairness Act,
will give hardworking Americans the same relief that the President has
already given to big businesses across the country.
The administration has no problem delaying the employer mandate, not
just once for 2014, but a second time for another full year for
employers with 51-100 employees. Shouldn't that same relief be provided
to rank-and-file Americans?
The President has refused to work with Congress to change the law so
today, we are moving ahead and doing what is right for the American
people. The Simple Fairness Act will eliminate the penalty for 2014 for
those individuals who chose not to purchase a government-approved
health care plan.
It is clear that H.R. 4118 offers the only feasible lifeline to
millions of Americans who are faced with purchasing an expensive health
care plan that does not meet their needs. It is Congress' job to
protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so
Washington can stop making decisions about American's health care and
instead individuals can be free to decide for themselves. I encourage
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying
bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is just not an ordinary day, this is a very
important thing that is happening here, particularly for those of you
who watch Congress a lot and want to know what it is we are about. This
is a very special occasion here. As you can see by this poster on my
right, we are celebrating a double golden anniversary. Today, the
majority is holding the 50th vote to repeal or to otherwise undermine
the Affordable Care Act under the 50th closed rule.
Now, to people who don't understand what a closed rule is, that means
this rule is coming to the floor to debate these bills, and it will not
allow them to be amended. That is not exactly an open Congress in a
great democracy.
The majority has defied all expectations in reaching those milestones
today, and as one often does when celebrating a colleague's 50th
birthday or acknowledging a friend's 50th wedding anniversary, I want
to take a moment to reflect on all that the majority has done to
achieve this great honor.
Indeed, many Americans, including myself, were doubtful we would ever
see the majority hold their 50th vote to repeal a good health care law
that is already benefiting more than 9 million Americans because, why
would Congress want to take health care away from people?
I remember back in 2012, when CBS News reported that the majority had
spent 80 legislative hours--costing approximately $48 million--to hold
33 votes to repeal the ACA. That is just the amount of money spent on
floor time and committee time. They had held 33 votes at that time to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. Given the incredible waste of time and
taxpayer money, I was hopeful that the 33rd vote might be the last. But
the majority has persevered, and continued to ignore the Nation's
pressing priorities to make it to today's 50th vote.
Of course, getting this far wouldn't have been possible without the
help of a closed legislative process--a process that has allowed the
majority to pursue a 50th vote without pause.
Last year, the majority presided over the most closed session in
history, and repeatedly passed closed rules that shut out the voices of
the nearly 200 duly elected Members of Congress who sit on my side of
the aisle. Now today, the majority is presenting their 50th closed rule
in order to hold a 50th go-nowhere vote to repeal the Affordable Care
Act.
It is truly amazing that the majority has managed to hold the same
vote 50 times while so many Americans and so much of the world cries
out for help. As we know, there are global crises from Ukraine to
Afghanistan. At home, there are millions still looking for work;
millions more are working for a minimum wage upon which they cannot
survive.
In fact, just this week the number of Americans whose emergency
unemployment insurance has expired will surpass 2 million individuals,
including almost 200,000 veterans. We could have averted the crisis
weeks ago, and we have tried numerous times to do that, but the
majority has repeatedly said ``no.'' Indeed, some of our colleagues
have said it would be immoral to help out those who have no money
coming into their home.
Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress released a report today
that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce
Federal spending on food stamps by $4.6 billion a year. Despite a
similar estimate from the Congressional Budget Office declaring that
raising the minimum wage
[[Page H2162]]
would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, the majority refuses to join
my Democratic colleagues and me to give America a raise.
Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bills that deserve
our consideration, but today's attempt to repeal a good health care law
is not one of them. In fact, I have a list of 50 votes that we could be
taking today instead of another vote to repeal the Affordable Care
Act--everything from rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads to
creating American manufacturing jobs.
Of particular importance is a bill that I authored called the
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act that will address
the immediate crisis of antibiotic-resistant diseases and help to save
lives. Despite the urgent need to protect public health, we have been
unable to even get a hearing on this important legislation.
The majority's refusal to take action on any of these pressing issues
is truly an achievement, not one to be proud of. I hope I have made it
clear that we cannot celebrate that achievement.
Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the milestone the majority is
reaching today will be the end of the line for their tired political
game. We have far too many issues that need our attention, and it is
well past time that we got to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the
Affordable Care Act
1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform
2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of
2013 (H.R. 3546)
3. Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010)
4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of
2013 (H.R. 1150)
5. Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377)
6. Make It in America Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 375)
7. Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R.
1421)
8. American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 (H.R.
2447)
9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support
Sustainable Manufacturing (E3) Act (H.R. 2873)
10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of
2013 or the ``MOVE Freight Act of 2013'' (H.R. 974)
11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for
Exportation (ATTIRE) Act (H.R. 937)
12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export
Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)
13. Put America Back to Work Now Act (H.R. 535)
14. Build America Bonds Act of 2013 (H.R. 789)
15. The Customs Training Enhancement Act (H.R. 1322)
16. American Export Promotion Act of 2013 (H.R.1420)
17. Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 1276)
18. Global Free Internet Act of 2013 (H.R. 889)
19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans
Solutions (NAT GAS) Act (H.R. 1364)
20. Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013 (H.R. 949)
21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE)
Act (H.R. 1440)
22. Export Promotion Reform Act (H.R. 1409)
23. Bridge to Jobs Act (H.R. 1419)
24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act
(H.R. 3004)
25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of
2013 (H.R. 905)
26. The Bring Jobs Home Act of 2013 (H.R. 851)
27. Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2013 (H.R. 929)
28. Market Based Manufacturing Incentives Act of 2013 (H.R.
615)
29. Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013 (H.R. 1027)
30. American Jobs Matter Act (H.R. 1332)
31. Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts (H.R. 1323)
32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act
of 2013 (H.R.1022)
33. Resource Assessment of Rare Earths (RARE) Act of 2013
(H.R. 981)
34. Congressional Made in America Promise Act (H.R. 194)
35. Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act (H.R.
1424)
36. SelectUSA Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1413)
37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency
and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)
38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act
(H.R.1415)
39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization
Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)
40. Advanced Composites Development Act of 2013 (H.R. 2034)
41. All-American Flag Act (H.R. 2355)
42. GREEN Act of 2013 (H.R. 2863)
43. Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 798)
44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining
Investment Collaboration (AMERICA Works) Act (H.R. 497)
45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional
Success (SECTORS) Act (H.R. 919)
46. Job Skills for America's Students Act of 2013 (H.R.
1271)
47. National Fab Lab Network Act (H.R.1289)
48. Workforce Development Tax Credit Act of 2013 (H.R.
1324)
49. Job Opportunities Between our Shores (JOBS) Act (H.R.
1436)
50. Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 (H.R. 1685)
{time} 1245
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.
Mr. Speaker, there have been 36 changes to the Affordable Care Act
since it was signed into law. It has been a little over 3 years since
the bill was signed into law. Thirty-six changes means one a month.
How does the breakdown of those 36 changes occur? According to the
Galen Institute published this morning, 15 times, Congress has passed
and the President signed legislation changing the Affordable Care Act.
Twice, the Supreme Court modified the Affordable Care Act, but 19
times, President Obama made a change unilaterally.
We are here today debating a delay on the penalties under the
individual mandate, but it might interest the Congress to know that the
President himself delayed the individual mandate. The administration
changed the deadline for the individual mandate by declaring that
customers who had purchased insurance by March 31 will avoid the tax
penalty.
Previously and by law, they were required to purchase that insurance
by Valentine's Day, February 14, so there has already been a 6-week
delay. We are simply trying to place in code what the President is
doing unilaterally.
You want to talk about a closed process where people don't have an
opportunity to participate? That is governing by executive fiat. That
is what we are trying to stop today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) will control the time for the minority.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, I want to come to the floor to wish the Republicans a happy
anniversary. I brought a gold ring. This is the 50th repeal of
ObamaCare. I want to wish my colleagues a happy 50th anniversary for
the appeal of ObamaCare.
Like any marriage that lasts 50 years, it takes a lot of work. The
American people have shown that they want this marriage to last. They
have shown that by reelecting Barack Obama as President. They have
shown that by electing a Senate that won't even consider a repeal of
the Affordable Care Act; but also like any marriage, it takes work
along the way to improve it, to work at it, to make changes to it.
Democrats stand ready to work with President Obama, to fine-tune this
wonderful marriage celebrating the 50th anniversary of its repeal here
today, to make sure it endures for another 50 repeal votes by the House
Republicans here in the coming months. We are ready to make the changes
that we need to, to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works for every
American.
There are issues in the implementation in my district. Two of my
counties, Summit and Eagle County, have among the highest insurance
rates in the exchange in the entire country, these two counties. That
is due to a problem that the State had in implementing it, but we would
love to work with Republicans on a Federal fix for Eagle and Summit
County, and the other Colorado counties that are affected by it.
I would be proud to work with my colleagues to replace the revenue
and the medical and device tax with other sources of revenue to ensure
that the Affordable Care Act works.
There are a lot of great ideas, and perhaps it is time that, rather
than continue to celebrate anniversaries of repeal, that we enter
couples counseling sessions today, and we work together in trying to
find common ground.
[[Page H2163]]
Rather than talking about repealing ObamaCare and going back to a
system we know wasn't working, in which 40 million Americans didn't
have health care insurance, in which Americans and my constituents and
yours were frustrated that, year after year, rates were going up 10,
15, 20 percent--rather than going back to a formula we know didn't
work, let's enter couples counseling and work together to make health
care work in our country, to talk about a path forward, with the
President, with Democrats, with Republicans, with Independents, to
ensure that these cost increases that have been epidemic the last
couple of decades come to an end, that we can extend coverage to more
American families, that we can ensure that the quality of health care
that is our Nation's pride can continue to be available to Americans,
regardless of their economic background.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize there have
been changes by administrative action, some 19 that President Obama has
done all on his own, without any influence from Congress.
Now, if the gentleman were truly interested about an offset for
repealing the medical device tax, perhaps he might look more favorably
on the bill before us today, H.R. 4118. The Congressional Budget Office
scores a significant savings by passing H.R. 4118.
Perhaps there are some other things that could be done with that
money as well; but nevertheless, the President has, on his own, delayed
employee reporting, delayed subsidies through the Federal exchange. He
closed the high-risk pool.
He has doubled the allowable deductibles. He has required self-
attestation and eliminated the reporting requirements under the law
that he signed in March of 2010.
He last fall said: Okay. I give up. Insurance can offer plans that we
just told you were illegal, that they were crummy insurance, and now,
we are going to allow them to be offered again.
All of these were actions taken by the executive under a closed
process. With no input or oversight by the people's House--by the
United States House of Representatives.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Isn't that wonderful? Isn't this great that the President has made 19
changes to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it work?
You know what? That is what a marriage takes. That is what has helped
the Affordable Care Act withstand the 50th vote to repeal it here in
the House. Had the President been inflexible--just like in a marriage,
if one partner is inflexible, it would have been a lot harder to
survive 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Here, we are
celebrating the golden anniversary of repeal votes, 50 votes.
But thanks to the President's flexibility with 19 changes, hopefully,
there are more along the way to ensure that all Americans have access
to affordable health care:
That no American faces pricing discrimination or is kept out of a
plan because of a preexisting condition;
That people can move between employers;
That somebody can leave a large company to be an entrepreneur and
have a startup without worrying about losing their health care if they
have a preexisting condition;
Making sure that young Americans, as they are trying to find a job or
working part time, can stay on their parents' plan;
Making sure that Americans have a real choice in the exchanges that
choose between multiple providers.
These were some of the elements that I think the American people want
to keep and one of the reasons that this health care act has not only
withstood 50 votes to repeal and is celebrating its golden anniversary,
but will survive the next 50 votes if the House Republicans choose to
have them to try to appeal the Affordable Care Act.
The American people want to see changes to make it work. We applaud
the President for the 19 changes he made. We encourage him to use the
discretion that we rightly give him under the Affordable Care Act to
help make it work.
We encourage the discretion at the State level that many Governors,
like the Governor of Kentucky and others, have shown to make the
Affordable Care Act work in their State.
We applaud the fact that there are over $200 billion of deficit
reduction in the Affordable Care Act. If we can find additional savings
and replace lost revenue, we are certainly open to that discussion. So
I rise in celebration of having withstood 50 repeal votes. We are ready
for the next 50.
We use these opportunities to highlight the American people on the
benefits of the Affordable Care Act and to say that we are ready to
have a real discussion with Republicans, to exert our legislative
privilege, to make changes, and in the absence of that, we applaud the
President in using the abilities that we give him under the act to help
make sure the Affordable Care Act truly makes health care more
affordable for American families.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here is the Affordable Care Act. The
President says it is the law of the land. How does it describe the
effective date for the individual mandate? Under section 1501,
subparagraph D, effective date:
The amendments made by this section shall apply to the
taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
Pretty unambiguous, pretty easy to understand. It doesn't seem to
have a lot of flexibility or wiggle room written into it.
How does the language read that describes the effective date for the
employer mandate? Well, that reads under section 1513, subparagraph D,
effective date:
The amendments made by this section shall apply to the
months beginning after December 31, 2013.
It doesn't sound as if there is a lot of flexibility; yet the
President, on his own, found the flexibility only within the executive
branch to say that effective date is no longer valid.
We are simply saying for Mr. and Mrs. American--for the average
American, we should be able to delay the effective date of the penalty
because this law has been a disaster from start to finish. Stories
about the Web site are now legion.
We should give the same relief to the average American that the
President gave to his friends in Big Business.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill--this 50th anniversary--golden anniversary of ObamaCare
repeals here in the House--50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act,
gutting mental parity, health parity, gutting protection for Americans
with preexisting conditions, went through no hearings, no markups, no
amendments that we are allowed to discuss or debate or vote on here on
the floor of the House. This is not the process for improving the
quality of health care for American families.
The American people have made it clear they want this marriage to
last. They want to make it work. They know it requires hard work. The
President has made 19 wonderful changes to the law.
I am not a constitutional lawyer. If there are folks on the other
side who want to sue the President, who think that he did something
contrary to the law we passed, they are certainly welcome to sue. I
believe that the President was given broad discretion under the law to
make it work.
I hope that this legislative body takes up the gauntlet and makes the
changes we need to make the Affordable Care Act work. Any marriage
takes effort. Here, we have a marriage between the Affordable Care Act
and the American people, and 50 votes to repeal it are not going to
break up that marriage.
It is a stronger marriage than that because the American people have
voted on it. They didn't elect a Presidential candidate who wanted to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. They didn't elect a Senate that wanted
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
So here we are, and we are welcome to have another 50, 100, 200 votes
to repeal the Affordable Care Act; or we can get to work on an open
process, letting Members of both parties offer floor amendments. This
rule allows no floor amendments.
Having a markup in committee, having hearings in committee about how
we can deliver better health care value to the American people will
make sure
[[Page H2164]]
affordable care is available to every American family and affordable
for small businesses, to make America more competitive.
But instead of going through an open process, encouraging ideas from
Republicans and Democrats to make health care work in our country, we
are presented with the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
In the absence of meaningful improvements and legislation, the
President is using the authority that we gave him under this bill to
make the changes that he needs to make, to make sure the Affordable
Care Act works.
This body can reassert itself and take back its prerogative whenever
we want by passing commonsense bipartisan bills to improve the
Affordable Care Act, but it truly is hypocritical to criticize the
President out of one side of one's mouth for making changes that
actually improve the law and make it work better, when here in this
body we are refusing to make some of those same commonsense changes.
I hope that if people think that there was authority of the law that
exceeded, they are welcome to work that out in the courts. That is what
the court is for, to settle the differences of separation of powers
between the executive and legislative branches; but I hope, more
important, because the American people care about affordable health
care, that this body is willing to take up some of those improvements
that we can make, to make sure that this marriage can endure for the
next 50 votes as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
It sounds as if the gentleman is going to vote for the bill under
consideration today because, after all, it is an opportunity to give
long-suffering Americans an opportunity to be out of the penalty part
of the Affordable Care Act.
Let's be honest, I mean this thing is one of the most coercive pieces
of legislation that has ever been passed by the United States Congress.
I might just remind people here in the House of Representatives that
this law, which was H.R. 3590, was actually not subject to any hearings
or any markups in the United States House of Representatives. Maybe it
was when H.R. 3590 first passed the House when it was a housing bill in
July of 2009.
But remember, what became the health care bill was a housing bill
that was amended. The amendment read over in the Senate: ``strike all
after the enacting clause and insert.''
And what was inserted was language written by special interests over
in the Cloakroom of the Senate Finance Committee, was passed by the
Senate on Christmas Eve, and then thrown back over here to the House.
{time} 1300
Since the House had passed H.R. 3590 as a housing bill, not as a tax
bill like the Affordable Care Act was but as a housing bill, the
question before the House then became: Will the House now concur in the
amendments to H.R. 3590? It took 3 months for the Speaker to cobble
together the 217 votes that she needed to pass this thing, but H.R.
3590 was never heard as a health care bill in my committee, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was never heard in the Ways and
Means Committee. It was never heard in the Education and Labor
Committee. That was H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 is long gone--no one has seen
it for years--but H.R. 3590 is what is embodied in the President's
health care law.
So, really, to say that everyone had a chance to participate in this
and to debate it, that is, in fact, hypocritical. What is really
hypocritical is that H.R. 3590, when it came back to the House, was
presented to this House under a closed rule. That is a fact, and that
is a fact that should be recognized by the minority. This bill was the
product of a closed rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it. The individual mandate is a
linchpin of RomneyCare--or whatever you would like to call it--modeled
on, in fact, the insurance reforms in Massachusetts. This component is
critical to ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are not
discriminated against in pricing in the exchange. It is important to
make sure that we have a younger, healthier risk pool in the exchange
to bring down rates for all Americans.
If this bill were to become law, which it won't--it is simply the
50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the golden anniversary of
repeals--the entire affordable care structure, including the pricing in
the exchange, would go up for American families, and it would devastate
health care reform. This is not a bill that has support from the
President. It is not a bill that has support from the proponents of the
Affordable Care Act. It doesn't make the Affordable Care Act better. It
is, in fact, the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
I was on the Education and Labor Committee, as it was called at the
time, two Congresses ago. My colleague from Texas talked about the
process under which the health care bill was written. We did have a
substantial markup. There were other committees: the Ways and Means
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. My committee was one
of the committees that it was reported out of, and there were other
committees it was not reported out of.
This was an amazing process of writing this bill over the period of a
year. In fact, in our Democratic Caucus meetings, we even, essentially,
functioned as a committee of our entire Caucus, where we went through
the bill page after page, and we made suggestions. There were a number
of bills that were written by Republicans that were included in the
Affordable Care Act, and there were amendments that I was involved with
that were included. Like in any legislative process, some that I
advocated for were not included in the final bill.
Unlike this bill, which had no hearing and no markup in any form--
because the gentleman from Texas is right. This bill number came from
the Senate, and that is the normal process around here. We sometimes
have bills from the Senate we approve, and sometimes they originate
here and go over there. So this bill number and this title came from
something else, and they approved it in reconciliation.
Yet the Affordable Care Act--the bill that led to it--went through my
committee. I remember being up until, really, I think, 7 o'clock in the
morning. We went straight through the night, under Chairman Miller,
offering a number of amendments, some passing and some not. Sometimes I
was on the prevailing side, sometimes not. We had a lively discussion
over amendments from Democrats and Republicans, some of which made it
into the final bill and some of which didn't. That is the legislative
process.
To somehow compare that to the legislative process around this bill
is like night and day. So, although the gentleman from Texas is
technically correct--the bill number was a reconciliation from the
Senate that the House concurred in and sent back with some changes--the
work that went into forming that bill had countless hearings and had
several markups, including one that I participated in and offered
amendments in and voted for and against amendments from both sides of
the aisle in.
We are where we are. We would love to see the Affordable Care Act go
through a process now. Again, why not allow amendments under this rule?
Why not allow Republicans or Democrats, who have ideas to make health
care more affordable, to offer them now to the floor? If they would
pass, then they would move on to the Senate.
Instead, we have a narrowly focused Affordable Care Act repeal that
makes health care less affordable for American families by leading to a
risk pool in the exchanges that is less healthy and older. We need to
ensure that young people are part of the exchanges. Young people want
to have insurance, and they want to have affordable insurance. Let's
make sure they have a way to do that in the exchanges. This bill would
repeal that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on my side, I
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. To the gentleman from Texas, I say it is possible I will
have one more speaker. If I see her arrive, I will yield to her.
Otherwise, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my
time.
[[Page H2165]]
Mr. Speaker, this week, the number of people who lost their
unemployment benefits as a result of Congress' failing to extend the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation program has climbed to 2 million
Americans. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore
unemployment insurance and provide much-needed relief to countless
families across the country as well as to stimulate our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying
bills.
We could be doing a lot of important work here in the House rather
than to have, I think, what both sides would agree is a purely symbolic
50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, unless there are, perhaps,
some who think ``50'' is the magic number. I think anybody who has a
degree of political sense realizes, if the other 49 didn't go anywhere,
this one is very unlikely to go anywhere. Rather than proceed with
something that isn't going anywhere and that gives the Democrats once
again the opportunity to talk about how important it is to make health
care more affordable--and the American people overwhelmingly want
health care to be fixed, not repealed--we could be doing a lot of
important things that the American people actually want this body to
do.
Let's talk about immigration reform.
There is a bill that passed the Senate with Democrats and
Republicans--68 votes. It is rare for more than two-thirds of the
United States Senate to come together around a commonsense solution.
How did they do that? They did that because the American people want
this problem solved. They are sick and tired--and they should be; I am,
too--of having over 10 million people illegally in this country. In my
district, there are tens of thousands of people who are there
illegally. We don't even know because there is no way to even count.
President Obama has deported over 2 million people at an enormous cost
to taxpayers--$10,000 to $20,000 per deportation. That is how much it
costs taxpayers--you and me, Mr. Speaker.
Guess what? There is a bipartisan solution supported by the law
enforcement community, supported by the business community, supported
by the technology industry, supported by both the agriculture
industry--farmers and farmworkers--and supported by business and labor,
supported by the faith-based community, supported by over 75 percent of
Americans across the political spectrum, supported by a majority of
Republicans and a majority of Democrats and a majority of Independents.
That bill is ready.
There is a bipartisan House version, H.R. 15. Let's bring that
forward under a rule. That bill would have the votes to pass tomorrow
if we brought it forward. We could send it to the President. We could
reduce the deficit by over $100 billion, increase our GDP, create
hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens, as the bill has
been scored. Finally, we could secure our borders so we could have
control over who comes and goes, both people and illicit products. That
is what the American people want. Let's get that bill through rather
than celebrate yet another empty anniversary for the repeal of the
Affordable Care Act.
I strongly suggest that my colleagues start bringing forward bills
that the American people want to see pass. If we can bring forward
immigration reform with bipartisan support and get it out of this body
and to the President's desk, the American people will start to improve
their opinions of this institution. When I see the polls and they say,
oh, 15 percent approval is what Congress has--or 12 percent--it is
really no wonder because it is a little bit like a broken record around
here. They are, frankly, sick and tired of our every week, it seems
like, repealing the Affordable Care Act and making health care more
expensive for the American people. They don't want to see us talking
about golden rings and 50th anniversaries of votes. They want to see us
solving problems.
We offer the Speaker and the majority leader the opportunity to do
that. We welcome the Republican immigration principles. There are ample
grounds to work on a bipartisan solution based on H.R. 15 or on another
bill that encapsulates those principles that the Republicans laid down
on which we can find common ground so as to solve a very real problem,
to grow our economy, to reduce our deficit, to secure our borders, and
to ensure that America remains competitive in the global economy. I
challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach a solution
on that issue and to really move forward with regard to making health
care more affordable.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed process--this
closed rule--that allows no Republican ideas and no Democratic ideas to
come forward, to enter this discussion. I urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question so the Democrats can bring forward the
unemployment insurance bill, and I also encourage my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Talk about doing the will of the people. There was an election in
Texas yesterday. There was a question on the ballot--to support or
oppose the President's takeover of the health care industry in this
country. Ninety-two percent of the people were recorded as being in
opposition to the President's takeover of health care. So, in fact, in
the district I represent, that is a significant amount.
Today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills to provide
relief for hardworking Americans who are faced with the
administration's expensive and restrictive mandates both in the health
insurance and energy sectors.
I want to thank my colleagues Lynn Jenkins from Kansas, the
Republican Conference vice chair, as well as the chairman of the Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Mr. Whitfield from
Kentucky, for their thoughtful pieces of legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 497 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3546) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment
benefits, 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 and the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3546.
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
[[Page H2166]]
ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal
of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question
passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in
order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of
the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition
rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 497, if
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 938.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 184, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 93]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
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
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)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
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)
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 (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
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 (IN)
NAYS--184
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
Chaffetz
Courtney
Crawford
DeGette
DeLauro
Duffy
Esty
Gosar
Green, Gene
Himes
Hinojosa
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
Messer
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Schneider
Shea-Porter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Wagner
{time} 1337
Mr. NADLER, Mrs. BEATTY, and Mr. GARCIA changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WEBER of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 93 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the
Previous Question, rollcall vote 93, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 182, not voting 20, as follows:
[[Page H2167]]
[Roll No. 94]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
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)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
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
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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 (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--182
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Chaffetz
Courtney
Crawford
DeGette
DeLauro
Duffy
Esty
Gohmert
Gosar
Green, Gene
Himes
Hinojosa
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Schneider
{time} 1344
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote Agreeing to
the Resolution, rollcall vote 94, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________