[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H713-H722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 596, REPEAL OF THE PATIENT 
                   PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 70

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 596) to 
     repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and 
     health care-related provisions in the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes. 
     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 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes 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 (Mr. Yoder). 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 70 provides for a rule to 
consider the full repeal of the flawed and ill-conceived Affordable 
Care Act.
  The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate, divided and controlled by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Further, the rule 
self-executes the Byrne amendment, which provides for a clean repeal of 
the entire Affordable Care Act. The rule further provides the minority 
with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  This approach--a full repeal--will give the House, particularly 
freshmen from both parties, an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote 
on the Affordable Care Act.
  More than just a full repeal, the legislation before us provides for 
a process whereby the committees of jurisdiction are tasked with coming 
up with a replacement for the flawed law now being implemented. We know 
what ideas don't work. Those are the ideas enshrined into law in the 
Affordable Care Act. Now let's look toward ideas that will work.

                              {time}  1230

  I do look forward to working with the Energy and Commerce Committee's 
chairman, Fred Upton, to craft meaningful legislation that will 
actually help the American people instead of strangle them with more 
government regulation, which is what the Affordable Care Act actually 
does.
  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. It included secret deals, loopholes, drafting errors, and 
funding cliffs that allowed Federal agencies to be created without 
congressional knowledge or oversight.
  More and more of the Affordable Care Act's supporters are having to 
admit to

[[Page H714]]

the American people that, in their rush to pass a bill, the same people 
who put their voting cards in the slot and helped the ACA become law 
didn't actually know what was in the bill.
  Now people are finding out what is in the bill, and they are upset. 
So upset are the American people that in every election for the House 
and Senate since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, more and more 
Republicans were chosen to replace supporters of the flawed law.
  Indeed, this past fall, President Obama, in no uncertain terms, 
declared:

       Make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.

  It is actually one of the few times I have ever agreed with this 
President. His policies were on the ballot, and the American people 
soundly rejected them, placing a historic majority of Republicans in 
the House and taking control of the Senate out of the hands of Harry 
Reid.
  The bottom line: the drafting and passage of the Affordable Care Act 
was not the way to achieve meaningful reform. Many errors occurred 
through the language. This is why the Supreme Court this spring will be 
hearing a case that could upend the Affordable Care Act's subsidy 
structure. This case is entirely the fault of people who drafted and 
implemented the bill so poorly.
  With the Supreme Court case looming, this body--this body--must be 
prepared to work for the American people and stave off the possible 
chaos which could ensue. The health care system in America needs reform 
and improvement, but the law that was passed will cost the American 
taxpayer millions of dollars, will not improve care, nor will it make 
it more affordable.
  The bill that this House will vote on puts in place a procedure that 
will begin the process of crafting a replacement that could truly bring 
affordable access to health care to all Americans. The so-called 
Affordable Care Act does not accomplish that goal.
  We need to start, and start fresh, and we need to address the issues 
with commonsense improvements that 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 this bad legislation that simply does not work. That is 
why, today, I strongly support the repeal of the President's health 
care law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
closed rule and to the underlying bill. Let me just say to my 
colleagues, to make it crystal clear, that this is an absolutely closed 
rule.
  This bill had no hearings in any of the committees of jurisdiction; 
it was not reported out by any of the committees of jurisdiction; and 
the Committee on Rules decided last night that no Member, no Republican 
or Democrat, has the right to offer any amendments. This is a closed 
process.
  Whatever happened to regular order?
  So, Mr. Speaker, here we are again, back on the House floor with yet 
another pointless attempt by the Republican majority to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. Today's exercise in time-wasting gamesmanship 
marks the 56th time that we have been down this well-traveled road.
  Fifty-six. Let's see. That is two score and 16. It is 4\1/2\ dozen. 
But no matter how you add it up, it has to be some sort of world record 
in political futility.
  So it is tempting to say that nothing has changed, but that is not 
exactly true because, in fact, a great deal has changed since my 
Republican colleagues first tried to repeal the ACA. Here are some of 
the things that changed:
  The number of uninsured Americans has dropped by 10 million people; 3 
million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a parent's 
plan; insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a 
so-called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman; lifetime 
limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated; seniors have saved 
more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an average of $1400 per 
Medicare beneficiary; copays and deductibles for preventive services 
for Medicare patients have been eliminated, and the solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years; and the growth in 
health care spending in this country is the slowest on record, while 
health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years.
  All that has happened thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If the 
Republicans get their way, much of it will disappear in an instant. If 
Republicans get their way, millions of Americans would lose their 
health care coverage, millions more would lose the subsidies they 
receive to purchase plans, millions of children would lose CHIP 
coverage, millions of seniors would lose benefits, and the deficit 
would increase.
  So let's be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker: this is no longer a 
theoretical political exercise; this is very, very, very real. If this 
Republican bill were ever to become law, then real people would see 
real benefits taken away. That is why President Obama has said very 
plainly that he would veto this bill if it ever reached his desk.
  There is something else new about this 56th version of Republicans 
banging their heads against a brick wall. For the first time, according 
to Politico:

       House Republicans want to postpone the full repeal of 
     ObamaCare for 6 months to allow time to come up with a 
     replacement plan.

  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I read that, I actually laughed out 
loud. The health care crisis in this country has been happening for 
years and years--decades. How many studies have been done? How many 
reports issued? How many hearings and debates and news stories? But 
after all of that, my Republican friends still need another 6 months to 
come up with a replacement plan.
  Here is an idea. Let's vote down this rule with the understanding 
that in 6 months--actually, I will give you 7, until after Labor Day--
that in 7 months you will be back here with your magic replacement 
plan, which I assume will be flown in on a unicorn sliding down a 
rainbow.
  I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because Republicans have absolutely 
no intention of actually doing the hard work of health care reform. 
This is just a gimmick. It is a chance for their new freshmen to cast 
their symbolic vote against ObamaCare so they can put out a press 
release and act like they have accomplished something.

  As the Washington Examiner reported:

       Republicans know that the repeal legislation isn't ever 
     going to become law. ``We are just getting it out of the 
     way,'' one GOP aide told the Examiner when asked about the 
     repeal vote.

  Just getting it out of the way, Mr. Speaker? What a cynical abuse of 
this House. It is a sham. It is a waste of everyone's time. It deserves 
to be defeated in this House, and if it ever makes it out of the 
Senate, it deserves the quickest veto President Obama can muster.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I may be 
new to this Chamber, but it sure seems like Groundhog Day around here 
to me. This is the 56th time my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have tried to repeal or weaken this landmark law, and the puzzle for me 
is that I know that they believe in so many of the provisions and 
support them.
  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, millions of people who 
didn't have insurance now have it and have signed up for the 
marketplace plans; 299,000 in Michigan alone.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that 
nobody's health coverage should be dropped when they suddenly get 
diagnosed with cancer. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle 
don't want to tell 129 million Americans that they are going to be 
denied insurance because they have a preexisting condition. I know my 
friends don't want to kick young people off their parents' insurance 
plan, and I know they never want to go

[[Page H715]]

back to the days of lifetime caps on health coverage or tell seniors 
they have got to start paying more for their medicine again. This is 
why I am totally perplexed, because if this bill were to pass, over 9.5 
million Americans would be hurt and left behind without access to 
quality, affordable coverage.
  The ACA may not be perfect. The last perfect law that there was 
agreement on was the Ten Commandments; and honestly, in today's 
climate, I am not sure we could get it through the Congress today. I 
urge my colleagues to work together with us on how to improve the law 
instead of constantly trying to do something they don't believe in.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise on the floor today 
really for two reasons, perhaps three. First of all, to support and 
defend the Committee on Rules last night where we overwhelmingly are in 
favor of making sure that every Member of this body has an opportunity 
to vote up or down on this terrible piece of legislation that is the 
law that is known as the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
  This last election the people of this country openly asked the 
question in many districts across this country: Are you for or against 
this terrible law that was put through this Congress without one 
Republican vote? So it is only obvious that every single new Member of 
this body would want to have an opportunity to vote up or down.
  Secondly, I want to defend the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, a member of 
our committee, who was attacked last night. I unfortunately had taken 2 
or 3 minutes away from the chair to attend to some other matters of the 
committee and was not available to be in the chair.
  Thirdly, I want to stand up for my State of Texas. In defense of the 
State of Texas, there has been a lot of talk about Texas lately, not 
just last night, but lately. So I want to make sure that people have a 
better understanding to know why Texans are being attacked, and that is 
because we reject big, liberal government that is embodied in the laws 
that are known as ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.
  In defense of our great State of Texas, we represent people of the 
State of Texas, and I strongly stand with my fellow Texan and fellow 
committee member, the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Michael 
Burgess. Dr. Burgess is not just a proud member of our delegation and a 
proud Member who represents Texas, just as I do, born in Waco, Texas, 
but I stand today for why Texas is a great State.
  Evidently we have got to defend our honor. It was done last night in 
the Committee on Rules; it is being done today on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. I stand in defense of Texas; although Texas I 
don't think really needs much defense.
  Texans are proud people, and we have been a proud people since the 
days of the Alamo and San Jacinto. That is when we used to be our own 
nation. Texans are fiercely independent, and we, I think, lead to the 
very best not only for ourselves, but we are trying to do that also for 
America.
  Texas is thriving, and the reason why we are thriving is because of 
economic growth, robust job creation, and overall quality of life. 
American families and businesses all across this country, I think, look 
to Texas as the leader in freedom and economic opportunity. That is 
what the Lone Star State is.
  In our system of federalism, people can also vote with their feet. In 
the last 5 years, the Texas population grew by 1.8 million people. 
People from all over the United States, all 50 States, found a brighter 
future for themselves in Texas.
  Over 1.6 million veterans call Texas home. These are men and women 
who fought for the freedoms that we enjoy and have today. Because of 
our communities, they support our veterans, and people know when they 
look to Texas, those people in Texas care about veterans and protecting 
our country.

                              {time}  1245

  Our churches, our schools, our hospitals, and our charities all lead 
the way in providing our citizens with things so that the government 
does not have to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Dr. Burgess was 
merely reflecting the views of our home State and the people who live 
there. Our Nation does better when we allow individuals to succeed, 
rather than look to government. We need to have a limited government, 
and people will then have more freedom.
  While some people may think that limited government and empowering 
families is ``crazy,'' I disagree. I think the numbers prove it. Texas 
has been called the great American job machine because we are the State 
that leads the Nation and the world. In fact, if Texas were its own 
country, it would have the 13th highest GDP in the world.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the wonderful commercial 
for Texas. We all should visit Texas.
  He said something that I thought was particularly interesting. He 
said: We're bringing this bill to the floor because every freshman 
deserves a vote on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  I guess I would ask the chairman: Does he believe that every freshman 
also deserves a vote on increasing the minimum wage or on comprehensive 
immigration reform or on adequate child care for our children in this 
country or on a whole number of other issues which we have routinely 
been denied the right to even have a vote on these issues on the House 
floor, which is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the 
world?
  What he neglects to tell everybody, including these freshmen--some of 
whom are Republicans--is that under this rule, you can't amend 
anything. You have been totally locked out.
  The committees of jurisdiction didn't hold a hearing. The committees 
of jurisdiction didn't hold a markup. Nothing was reported out of any 
of these committees, notwithstanding the fact that they have been 
constituted and organized--nothing.
  It just shows up in the Rules Committee, and they bring it to the 
floor under a completely closed process. This is a lousy way to run a 
Congress.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Here we go again. This bill marks yet another attempt by the 
Republican majority to repeal the Affordable Care Act but the first 
time after implementation of many of the provisions that Americans have 
relied upon.
  People think the ACA only provides the ability to buy health 
insurance on an exchange or marketplace. Yes, it is a new way to shop 
for health insurance in which you can compare plans apples to apples. 
Yes, it is a way to obtain subsidies to make that coverage more 
affordable. Yes, with all these benefits, people can join the system 
and cover themselves prior to a medical catastrophe.
  However, the Affordable Care Act has also accomplished so much more 
than that. Repealing the law lock, stock, and barrel that has been in 
place for nearly 5 years is not in anyone's best interest.
  As an example, the ACA created the prevention and public health fund, 
an unprecedented mandatory investment in States' public health systems. 
The need for this investment has become increasingly evident after 
public health emergencies in recent months--evidenced by Ebola and, 
today, measles.
  Repealing the ACA today would mean 129 million Americans could again 
be denied insurance coverage for preexisting conditions. It would mean 
Americans would no longer have access to free preventive services such 
as vaccines, disease screenings, well-child visits, and tobacco 
cessation.
  I heard from one of my constituents Lara who, as a freelance film 
producer with a former cancer diagnosis, found getting health insurance 
to be impossible. Thanks to the ACA, she now has

[[Page H716]]

coverage and is able to have regular checkups to make sure that the 
cancer does not return.
  Do you want to take away all of that? The health care providers, 
health plans, and consumer advocates in my district and across the 
country have worked hard to put these provisions in place and to make 
the ACA work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. MATSUI. We can't take this away now. It works.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. You are doing an outstanding 
job with this course and health care in general. I appreciate it so 
very much. I know my constituents do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill to repeal and replace the President's health care law.
  Health care reform should lower costs and increase access; instead, 
the President's signature piece of legislation didn't let people keep 
the plans they liked, raised health care premiums, and cut Medicare by 
$500 billion.
  When the President said, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it,'' 
my constituents told me that wasn't true. On average, a 30-year-old 
woman in Pasco County, Florida, will see her prices increase over 30 
percent. Costs haven't been lowered. It is as simple as that.
  The Obama administration willingly cut Medicare to pay for a health 
care law that was poorly written and implemented.
  Support H.R. 596, and repeal this law, and support a patient-
centered, free market alternative that will lower costs and increase 
access to care.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. 
There is no replacement here. All the Republicans want to do is repeal 
the Affordable Care Act and take away all these important benefits that 
people have received as a result of it.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for giving me a chance to 
tell a little personal story about the success of the Affordable Care 
Act and its impact on the Perlmutter family.
  On election day, my wife, a teacher in the Jeffco school system in 
Colorado, who had hardly ever been to the hospital, had something that 
they thought was pretty devastating. She went into surgery on election 
day.
  It turned out it was exploratory. A very rare condition was exposed 
which required a second surgery. Only a handful of surgeons across this 
country deal with that kind of condition. The surgeons who do it were 
outside of the network of the original insurance company that provided 
insurance for her.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act, we were able to go into the 
exchange and find an insurance company through an outstanding insurance 
broker. Rocky Mountain Health Plans had a surgeon who could handle this 
kind of condition and was within their network.
  It provided her with fantastic medical care and peace of mind that 
she was going to somebody who knew precisely what they were doing, and 
it was all because of the Affordable Care Act.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, you cannot discriminate against people 
with a preexisting condition; so for her, she was able to have the 
peace of mind that is required for recovery. She got the best medical 
care possible through a coverage that was professional and prompt in 
its service.
  Physically, mentally, and emotionally, the Affordable Care Act helped 
her find a physician equipped and qualified to help her condition.
  The Affordable Care Act is a civil rights act, and it has got to be 
upheld.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we will take our 56th vote to repeal or undermine 
the Affordable Care Act.
  In my home State of Kentucky--a nationwide success story of this 
law--521,000 Kentuckians enrolled in health coverage last year. That is 
more than a half a million people in a State with a population of just 
over 4 million. Seventy-five percent of those who signed up were 
previously uninsured.
  These are maps of before and after uninsured rates in our 120 
counties. The orange and red represent uninsured rates of 14 percent to 
more than 20 percent. The dark blue is less than 5 percent.
  Today, after the Affordable Care Act, every single county has had a 
reduction in their uninsured rates. In some areas, uninsured rates have 
plummeted by more than 65 percent.
  As we watch these uninsured rates drop, as the counties on this map 
go from red to green or blue, that is another person getting the care 
or treatment they need, a family's future transformed, lives saved.
  This law is a success. The Affordable Care Act is working, and you 
need to look no further than the Commonwealth of Kentucky to see the 
proof.
  Repealing the Affordable Care Act at this stage would be an absolute 
death sentence to thousands of people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky 
and throughout the country. We cannot let this happen.
  I urge a vote against the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Texas 
if he has any more speakers?
  Mr. BURGESS. Yes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I was just curious because it seems like there is no 
enthusiasm on your side for debating this for the 56th time.
  Mr. BURGESS. I generally reserve my enthusiasm for closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of legislation that 
would encourage schools to provide career education about local 
manufacturing jobs.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on 
bills that would strip health care away from millions of Americans, we 
should be focusing on legislation like my bill, the American 
Manufacturing Jobs for Students Act, which will help connect young 
people to highly skilled manufacturing jobs in their own communities. A 
strong middle class begins with early and effective career education.
  Small business owners in my district have told me time and time again 
that they cannot find the workforce they need in the communities where 
they are located. Many high school graduates are underemployed and have 
trouble finding innovative and inspiring careers close to home.
  My bill would bridge that gap by fostering connections between 
manufacturing jobs, small businesses, and schools. It will support 
student engagement and professional relationships with local businesses 
through workplace visits and hands-on learning experiences. It will 
strengthen the economy and help employers find the employees they need 
close to home.
  By giving middle and high school students the opportunity to learn 
firsthand about exciting and innovative careers in manufacturing, we 
can strengthen our country's economic competitiveness. We can also 
encourage manufacturers to keep their production in the United States.
  We should do all we can to ensure that job creators stay here to 
provide opportunities for our own constituents. We should be working 
together on bills like the American Manufacturing Jobs for Students Act 
and not on bills which are dead on arrival when they reach the 
President's desk.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion on ordering the 
previous question on the rule.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Dr. Dan Benishek.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the underlying bill.

[[Page H717]]

  I have been a doctor in northern Michigan for 30 years, and I have 
always put the needs of my patients first. I believe it is time for 
Congress to do the same thing today.
  We need to get to work on finding bipartisan and commonsense 
solutions that will put the patient and their doctor back in control of 
health care decisions and help lower the cost of health care while 
maintaining the quality.

                              {time}  1300

  We need to focus on things like allowing people to purchase health 
insurance across State lines, just like we can already do with car 
insurance, making health insurance portable so you can take it with you 
from job to job, another simple change that would improve access to 
health care. A few of these simple changes would dramatically improve 
the quality of care available while lowering the overall cost.
  Many of the patients that I have been talking to tell me their health 
insurance has gone up, their deductible has gone up. This is not 
bringing more health care to the American people. This is bringing less 
health care to the American people. They have less access to care now 
than they have had in the past.
  I hope all my colleagues today will join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 
596 so that we can finally pass patient-centered improvements to our 
Nation's health care system.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by what I just heard from the gentleman 
about all these alternatives to fix and improve our health care system.
  Four years ago, the Republicans passed an identical bill like the one 
we are considering today in which they said they ordered their 
committees to report out alternative replacement language or their 
vision of what a health care reform should be. That was 4 years ago.
  They have done nothing but demagogue this issue for 4 years, and here 
we are again today, playing political gamesmanship with a bill to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health insurance for 
millions of Americans, increase prescription drug prices for our senior 
citizens, raise taxes on middle class families, and they have nothing 
to replace it with. This is a waste of our time. This is an insult to 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this important issue, as important as the health of 
the American people.
  I salute Congresswoman Brownley for her alternative bill that we 
should be voting on, if we can defeat this rule, that helps students 
get manufacturing jobs, just what we have been asking for, a 
collaboration between business and education where kids are trained for 
good-paying jobs as they leave school.
  Instead, the Republicans are putting forth this rule that would, once 
again, for the 56th time, repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  We come together on the floor of the House right now, when we need to 
pass a homeland security bill to protect the American people. The 
Speaker said in December, when we didn't pass the appropriation bill 
for the year, we will do it after the first of the year.
  In January, the world was alarmed by what they saw in Paris. The 
whole world was galvanized around the issue of fighting terrorism and 
protecting homeland security, except in this hermetically sealed House 
Chamber.
  We still haven't done what we take an oath to do: support and protect 
the American people when we take an oath of office to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. Instead, we have the Republicans 
continuing to bay at the Moon. They are baying at the Moon, something 
that is not going to work; and instead of proposing any, which we would 
be welcome to hear, good suggestions they may have to approve the 
Affordable Care Act, they are baying at the Moon--56 times.
  We have important work to do for the American people. They want us 
here to create jobs. They want us here to protect them. We need to pass 
that homeland security bill. Instead, in our hermetically sealed world, 
oblivious to what is going on outside, we are taking this up.
  They want to strip health security from America's families. They are 
willing to threaten what that means to our economy, willing to 
jeopardize the need for us to lower costs for businesses is what this 
bill does.
  I have said over and over again, even if everyone loves his or her 
health insurance or his or her health care, even if that were the case 
in our country, we would still have had to pass the Affordable Care Act 
because the cost to individuals, to families, to businesses large and 
small, to governments--local, State, and national--the cost was 
unsustainable. That was one of the things the Affordable Care Act set 
out to do, and I am so pleased to show that the statistics show that 
the rate of growth of health costs is going at a lower rate than ever 
in our history--very important.
  The CBO projected that this bill would save--what?--hundreds of 
billions of dollars, maybe up to $1 trillion over its projected life, 
the life that we have to account for when we put it before us.
  So this is about the health of our people. It is about the health of 
our economy. It is about lowering costs.
  It is important to know what is at stake, because families are seeing 
the full promise of the Affordable Care Act emerge, to make health care 
a right for all, not a privilege for the few:
  8.2 million seniors have saved more than $11.5 billion on their 
prescription drugs since this bill passed, an average of $1,407 per 
senior;
  105 million Americans no longer have a lifetime limit or an annual 
limit on their coverage. This is what you want to repeal today;
  129 million Americans with preexisting conditions no longer have to 
worry about being denied coverage because of their health status. That 
is what you want to repeal today.
  It is also important to note that, with the success of the Affordable 
Care Act and the 9.5 million people who are signed up in marketplaces, 
including Medicaid expansion, 19 million uninsured Americans will be 
covered in 2015.
  In addition to that, the Affordable Care Act has pushed forth the 
solvency of Medicare for 13 years longer. That is what you want to 
repeal today.
  Our Founders, how beautiful they were in all that they did and wrote 
and their courage and their optimism for the future. They wrote about 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of 
Independence. In that Declaration of Independence, that is the 
independence we want to give people: for a healthier life, the liberty 
to pursue their happiness without being job-locked because of a health 
care policy, free to be self-employed, to start a business, to change 
jobs, to pursue their happiness.
  So this is about, again, the health of our country, not just the 
health care of our country. On our path forward today, and in the 
future, the Affordable Care Act will continue to rank up there with 
Social Security, with Medicare, a third pillar of economic and health 
security for the American people.
  So I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Enable 
Congresswoman Brownley's education proposal to match kids up with 
skills and jobs, something that this country needs to move on to 
legislation to create good-paying jobs, to add bigger paychecks for 
America's working families, to stop the stagnation of wages, and to do 
so in a way that understands how important health care is to reducing 
the deficit in addition to improving the health of our country.

  Again, by the way, the clock is ticking on the bill for homeland 
security. That is our responsibility: to support and protect. Let's get 
about the business that we take an oath to do instead of, for the 56th 
time, bay at the Moon. It is hard to understand why we would waste the 
time of this Chamber and the American people on this frivolous 
resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of 
response.
  First off, I don't know. Maybe people weren't paying attention, but 
the House has passed a funding bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security. It awaits action over in the Senate. So if the minority 
leader is concerned, perhaps she can talk to people in the other

[[Page H718]]

body about whether or not it might be a good idea for them to take some 
action, and that would be the correct way to proceed. The House acts; 
the Senate acts. I refer people who are unclear on that concept to 
``Schoolhouse Rock,'' and it will tell you how a bill becomes law.
  People talk about the 56th time we have had something on the floor. 
Obviously, I don't know that I can attest to the accuracy of that 
count, but what I can attest to the accuracy of is that 11 times the 
President of the United States has signed into law some action passed 
by the House of Representatives and the Senate and then subsequently 
signed by the President--11 times--modifying or changing his signature 
legislation, the Affordable Care Act. Probably what is more telling is 
the 28 times--28 times--that the President has simply set aside part of 
his law because it wasn't convenient.
  If the other side wants, I can go through and delineate these one by 
one. I have, actually, a document prepared by the Galen Institute, and 
I would refer people to them if they would like to look at this.
  But really, some of the things that the President himself has set 
aside--I mean, who can forget, in a blog post, the administration 
setting aside the employer mandate, the entire employer mandate. Not 
surprising, because when the President was a candidate and he came down 
to Texas and debated Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008, he was 
against the mandate, and then he was for it. So then he set it aside 
right before the Fourth of July in 2013. And for people who aren't 
paying attention, guess what? It actually started January 1 of this 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if only we were debating another subsidy 
for Big Oil or another tax break for some special corporate interest, 
my colleagues would be down here with great joy advocating for it.
  But when it comes to a bill to ensure that millions and millions of 
our citizens get health insurance, they want to repeal it. When it 
comes to protecting our senior citizens who are seeing their 
prescription drugs being lowered because of this bill, they want to 
repeal it. When it comes to eliminating preexisting conditions, they 
want to repeal it. I mean, that tells you all you need to know about 
where their priorities are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the 
Republican majority.
  As a new Member, I haven't had the opportunity to speak on this issue 
on the House floor or vote on it. When I saw that the previous Congress 
had voted 55 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I was a little 
concerned that I would miss all the fun. So I am very happy that we now 
have a 56th vote on this issue, and it gives me an opportunity to say 
what a strong supporter I am of the Affordable Care Act.
  This has worked. More than 10 million Americans have health insurance 
today that otherwise would not have it. More than 3 million children 
have been able to stay on their parents' plan who otherwise would not 
have had health insurance. And another 3 million, on top of that, have 
extra protections through State-affiliated agencies, such as CHIP, that 
would not have it today if not for the Affordable Care Act.
  Now, with the rate of the uninsured at its lowest percentage in 
American history, you would think that with this success that maybe the 
downside would be that health care costs would have gone through the 
roof. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. We have just had a year 
in which health care costs rose by the lowest rate in 50 years--and 
this is something that all Americans can celebrate, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for the 56th time, this Congress will attempt to 
repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. It is a mistake. I will join my 
colleagues in voting against it.
  I would say sincerely to Members on the other side, if there are 
those who are willing to look openly at this issue and say, yes, it has 
largely worked but let's address those areas that could do better, I 
think you will find those, particularly new Members on this side of the 
aisle, who are open-minded toward that and want to address areas that 
can be improved. Look at all the times that Medicare has been improved 
since its initial passage in 1965.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding and for leading around this Nation on this issue. So far away 
from Texas as even Iowa, the gentleman from Texas has fought for the 
full 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare and laid out, I think, a good 
strategy for the future health care circumstances in America.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, when this passed, many of us 
went through a long battle here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and outside among the masses of people that came here 
and surrounded the United States Capitol to plead: Do not take our 
liberty. Let us manage our own health and our own health care, and let 
us purchase a health insurance policy that is right for us, not one 
that the government thinks is right for us, and let's do something that 
is constitutional.
  Well, we watched as that drama unfolded and engaged in that drama. I 
have a number of scars left over from that. In the end, ObamaCare 
passed by hook, by crook, and by legislative shenanigan. History shows 
that. The litigation that has emerged and the litigation yet to emerge 
will shape this to some degree, but this Congress needs to resolve 
this.
  What had happened was, in the election in 2010, 87 freshmen 
Republicans were elected into office here to come, and every single one 
of them ran on the full 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare. That was a 
transformative election. It shifted the majority from the Democrats to 
the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, a mandate to repeal ObamaCare. We acted 
on that mandate.
  In fact, the morning after ObamaCare was passed, I was at the door--
my staff was actually at the door. I had written a bill in the middle 
of the night to repeal ObamaCare. I had the first draft to repeal 
ObamaCare, a component of 40 words, and it applies to two sections of 
the bill. That bill was drafted March 24, 2010. It was filed March 25, 
2010. I filed a discharge petition down here on the floor on the 16th 
of June 2010--it received 173 signatures--with Republicans in the 
minority, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long effort.
  We voted on the full repeal of ObamaCare, H.R. 2 by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), on the 19th of January 2011; another repeal 
by Mr. Cantor on the 9th of July 2012, always with the 40-word King 
language in it; and again on the 16th of May 2013, H.R. 45.
  We have been bringing the full repeal of ObamaCare here to the floor 
over and over again to give everybody an opportunity--even those who 
didn't have an opportunity to get involved in this debate--to go on 
record and tell us where you want to see the future of the health care 
circumstances here in the United States. Every Republican up to this 
point has voted to repeal ObamaCare.
  Every Member of the House, with the exception of those that were 
sworn in for the first time this Congress, has had that chance. Now we 
give everyone that chance, and we will send a full repeal over to the 
Senate so the nine freshmen Republicans over there can clearly also go 
on record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Because we want to elect a President who will take the oath on 
January 20, 2017, to sign the repeal of ObamaCare at the podium on the 
west portico of the Capitol as the very first act of the next President 
of the United States.
  So I thank the leadership for incorporating my language into this 
bill. I thank those all across this country who have stepped up to 
defend our constitutional liberties, our personal liberties. When this 
is done, we will get to work on putting together a good health 
insurance and health care delivery system in America in spite of all of 
the

[[Page H719]]

time that we have lost fighting over this unconstitutional mess called 
ObamaCare.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from 
Iowa that there was a Republican Presidential candidate named Mitt 
Romney who ran on the platform of total repeal of the Affordable Care 
Act, and he lost. And, by the way, Obama won Iowa by 51-46.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Groundhog Day. How 
appropriate that the Republican majority chose today for their 56th 
attempt to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. These 
futile, ideological gestures are getting old.
  The vote I cast for the health care law is one of the proudest I have 
cast in my political career because the reforms that we put in place 
are helping millions of families across the Nation. Americans can no 
longer be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. Preventive 
screenings, maternity care, and pediatric care are now all covered. 
Seniors enjoy relief from high drug costs. Millions of low-income 
children have health care through the CHIP program. Women's health has 
been put on an equal footing. Insurers can no longer subject families 
to lifetime caps on coverage. Annual caps are being phased out.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act 
has reduced the number of uninsured people by 12 million last year, 19 
million this year. My Republican colleagues don't really care about 
that because they have health care as a Member of Congress. Why should 
they worry about people who do not have health care?
  The CBO has also cut its estimate of the cost of rolling out coverage 
to millions of Americans, a saving of $140 billion compared to previous 
estimates. This is good news. It should be on the front page of every 
newspaper.
  The Affordable Care Act has succeeded by putting people--not 
insurance companies--in charge of health care. It has given millions of 
families care that they can depend on. We are a better country because 
of it.
  Let me say to my colleagues in the majority: Give it a rest. Get a 
life. The American people like this law. The Supreme Court has upheld 
it. We have had two elections around it. Stop trying to take away 
people's health care benefits.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for being astute in reminding us of the vast bipartisan 
support for the important Affordable Care Act. If I might add, the past 
Presidential candidate who lost was the same Governor, however, I 
understand, that supported it and succeeded in his support of it at 
that time.
  But I think what is important is to again remind this Nation that we 
are now on the 56th annual trip to repeal what has been a lifesaver to 
Americans across the country. Let me simply share these very potent 
points:
  People not having health insurance include 20 percent of the 
underinsured who delay receiving care when signs of illness appear; 15 
percent of the underinsured had problems paying medical bills; 10 
percent of the underinsured needed prescription drugs but could not 
afford them; 8 percent were hounded by collection agencies, many of 
them went into bankruptcy because of health issues--of course we have 
tried to reform that--6 percent did not seek treatment even though they 
needed it; and, of course, a report by the Congressional Budget Office, 
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025 states that the actual 
cost of the Affordable Care Act is 7 percent lower than first 
calculated in 2010.

  Let me tell you the real issues, the story of a lady written up in 
The Ledger, dated January 8, 2015, who was diagnosed with leukemia in 
2013. She determined that her insurance at that time would not allow 
her to have health insurance. Her words are: ``I thought I was going to 
die,'' Ms. Gray said. In her scramble to try to get drugs, she was left 
holding the bag, yet she was able to get the Affordable Care Act 
starting on January 1, 2014. It gave her access to the recommended 
chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall, and she is 
alive.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about the situation of the measles? Why do we 
have this dead-end road again, repetitiously voting against the 
valuable Affordable Care Act that has saved lives?
  Does anybody know about Medicare? It goes on and on and on. And many 
on the other side of the aisle opposed it in 1965.
  I am going to stand on the right side of history and support the 
Affordable Care Act. Vote against this untimely bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of 
a response.
  First off, when Medicare passed, it was passed with a bipartisan vote 
in the House of Representatives, and that is a matter of historic 
record. In fact, that is one of the weaknesses of the President's 
takeover of health care in this country is that it passed only with 
Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate on final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I also went through the number of times that the 
President has unilaterally delayed, deferred, or simply dismissed parts 
of his own law. One of, perhaps, the most troublesome, one of the most 
curious, is when the President set aside entry into his own preexisting 
pool in January of 2013, they did that because they were worried that 
they were going to run out of money in the preexisting fund. But the 
reality was that for anyone who was hoping to get coverage under the 
preexisting pool beginning in January-February of 2013, they were told: 
Sorry. Window closed. Go somewhere else.
  Then to add further insult to injury, when they couldn't get the Web 
site up and working at the end of 2013, they actually had to extend 
coverage in the Federal preexisting pool until March of 2014 so those 
patients would not be left out in the cold.
  So the President has been deeply involved in delaying parts and 
deferring parts and repealing parts of his very own law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of the amendment that I intend to offer in the Record along with 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question. This would be the amendment that Ms. Brownley of California 
talked about, providing manufacturing training for our high school 
students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by talking about the 
process. Let me say two words about this process: it stinks.
  We have a bill before us today on the House floor that bypassed all 
of the committees of jurisdiction. And I say to my colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, if you are on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, on the Education and the Workforce Committee, or on the Ways 
and Means Committee, you should be outraged that legislation that is 
under your jurisdiction never went to your committees. It just showed 
up in the Rules Committee last night. And on top of all of that, no 
amendments are allowed; nobody can offer any ideas.
  I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk about they have 
ideas for making the Affordable Care Act better or for replacing it. 
They don't have the opportunity even to bring those ideas to this House 
floor.
  Four years ago, we voted on a similar measure which said that the 
Republicans would have the committees of jurisdiction report out 
alternatives. It is 4 years later, and we are doing the same thing over 
and over and over again. It is a waste of taxpayer time. It is an 
insult to the American people.
  And as far as the substance of what my Republican friends are trying 
to do, I just wonder if any of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle would have the courage to say to people face to face, ``I am 
going to take your health care away,'' because that is what this

[[Page H720]]

bill would do. That is what this bill would do, and it is shameful.
  When I first ran for office, I said to my constituents that one of 
the things I was committed to was to making sure that everybody in this 
country had health insurance. Health care ought to be a right. Nobody 
should have to worry whether or not they can afford to get the health 
care that, quite frankly, every American is entitled to and deserves. 
We have made a great stride forward with the Affordable Care Act.
  Is it perfect? No.
  Could it be better? Yes.
  But to come up with bill after bill after bill, 56 times of repeal, 
repeal, it is getting old. It is getting boring. People are sick of 
this.
  Let me just remind my colleagues about what this bill has 
accomplished, just because this is no longer a theoretical, abstract 
debate. These are some real things that have changed.
  The number of insured Americans has dropped by about 10 million 
people. I mean, that is a good thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a 
problem with that. But I think most Americans, Democrats and 
Republicans, think that is a good thing.
  Three million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a 
parent's plan. I think that is good.
  Insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a so-
called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman. I think that is 
a great thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a problem with that.
  Lifetime limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated. That is 
wonderful.
  Seniors have saved more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an 
average of $1,400 per Medicare beneficiary. That is positive. We knew 
that there was a flaw, the doughnut hole, in the Medicare prescription 
drug bill. This fixed it.
  Copays and deductibles for preventive services for Medicare patients 
have been eliminated, and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has 
been extended by 13 years. That is a good thing. Now, I know my friends 
on the other side of the aisle want to privatize Medicare or have no 
use for Medicare, but for those of us who want to see this program move 
well into the next century in complete solvency, this is a good thing.

                              {time}  1330

  The growth in health care spending in this country is the slowest on 
record while health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 
years. This didn't happen by accident. This happened because we passed 
the Affordable Care Act, and if Republicans get their way, all of these 
things will disappear.
  This is a debate, I think, about values more than anything else. This 
is about whether or not we believe that everybody in this country ought 
to have health insurance, whether or not we ought to make the reforms 
that I have just mentioned part of the permanent culture of this 
country.
  I think this is good. I voted for the Affordable Care Act. I am proud 
I voted for the Affordable Care Act. My friends, this issue about 
health care and access to health care has been around for decades and 
decades and decades, and my friends have done nothing.
  Their prescription for health care reform has been: take two tax 
breaks, and call me in the morning. That is the total reform that they 
have advocated in the time I have been here and in the time I have been 
paying attention to what has been going on in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to appreciate that this Congress did 
something positive in passing the Affordable Care Act, and we ought not 
to let extremists on the other side take the protections away from the 
American people.
  We are going to fight you every step of the way because we believe 
that people in this country are entitled to health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first address the question of process because the 
Affordable Care Act did pass in the 111th Congress. The Affordable Care 
Act, as it came to the 111th Congress under then-Speaker Pelosi, was 
not a bill that had been considered in any of the committees of 
jurisdiction. H.R. 3590 came to us from the Senate of the United 
States.
  Now, in fairness, H.R. 3590 had passed the floor of the House, I 
believe it was July of 2009; but H.R. 3590, when it passed the floor of 
the House, was a bill dealing with veterans housing.
  So it goes over to the Senate to await further work, and to be sure, 
in the meantime, H.R. 3200 and then a couple of follow-on bills were 
marked up in committees, and then the Speaker condensed things and 
introduced her own bill.
  We heard it on the floor of the House; and, indeed, it passed in 
November of 2009. Mr. Speaker, that was the end of the line for that 
bill. No one has seen or heard from it again.
  My friends on the other side may remember some parts of that bill. 
What about the Independent Payment Advisory Board? Was that included in 
the House-passed bill? No, it was not.
  Well, there was a public option because the Democrats felt very 
strongly about having a public option. Really, they wanted a single-
payer system, so a way to move to a single-payer system was to include 
the public option, but the public option wasn't in H.R. 3590.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3590, a House-passed bill dealing with veterans 
housing, went over to the Senate where, sometime between Thanksgiving 
and Christmas, it was pulled out of Harry Reid's desk and amended.
  The amendment read ``strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert.'' All of the housing language was removed, and all of the 
health care language was inserted. This travesty was passed on 
Christmas Eve in 2009.
  A big snowstorm was bearing down on Washington, D.C., Senators wanted 
to get home to be with their families before the airport closed, and so 
it was passed in the early hours of Christmas Eve in 2009.
  Now, shortly after that, Massachusetts had a special election to fill 
the vacancy that occurred after the unfortunate death of Senator 
Kennedy. That vacancy was filled for the first time by a Republican 
from Massachusetts.
  I think that was really the first time since the Earth cooled, the 
first time that a Republican had been elected from Massachusetts. The 
critical point on that was that Harry Reid no longer had 60 votes over 
in the Senate.
  Prior to that, he had been pretty much impervious: I have got 60 
votes. I am going to do what I want. Democrats can bust a filibuster on 
anything because they have got 60 votes.
  After the loss of that 60th vote, H.R. 3590 could not be changed--or 
at least Harry Reid's assertion was that it could not be changed, and 
Speaker Pelosi would simply have to pass what he gave her.
  Now, there was a lot of resistance here on the House to passing--even 
on the Democratic side--there was a lot of resistance to passing that 
bill that came over from the Senate because it was not a House product.
  It had the Independent Payment Advisory Board in it. It didn't have a 
public option in it. Many of the Democratic Members were reluctant to 
engage on this. In fact, I think the quote from Speaker Pelosi that day 
was: I don't have 100 votes for this thing over on the House side.
  Over the ensuing 3 months, they did convince and cajole enough of 
their Members to pass this by the slimmest of majorities in the early 
part of March of 2010, and that leads us to where we are today.
  Mr. Speaker, it was the 111th Congress that passed this thing. I had 
18 amendments to the Affordable Care Act that I dutifully took up to 
the Rules Committee when we were in the minority and said: Look, I 
don't like what you are doing, but let's at least keep it from being 
quite the problem that it is going to be.
  Every one of those was rejected. I lost on a 9-4 vote. No surprise--
it is the Speaker's committee, she held the votes on the committee, but 
don't tell me that this was a process of anything other than what was a 
very flawed and partisan process.
  Now, several people today have referenced the Founders and the 
Declaration of Independence. The reality is,

[[Page H721]]

Mr. Speaker, we are a country that was founded on the principle of 
government with the consent of the governed.
  No one was asking for this thing. No one wanted this thing. Sure, 14 
percent of people in this country have been helped, so they like it. 
Seventeen percent have been hurt, such as myself. I lost my health 
savings account under the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen percent of the 
country doesn't like it.
  Most everyone else feels as if, ``I am basically unaffected, I may 
have a problem ideologically either pro or con, but I have not been 
affected.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do recommend that people pay attention. The employer 
mandate actually became effective January 1 of this year. It won't 
really affect people until next year when medium-sized businesses begin 
to file their taxes and find that if they have not kept up with all of 
the laborious reporting requirements and paperwork requirements under 
the employer mandate, they are going to be in a world of hurt when they 
file their taxes for calendar year 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a bill to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation that the 
American people have time and again said they do not want.
  I thank Mr. Byrne for his legislation and for working on this matter. 
I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 70 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That 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. 
     645) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to provide career education pathways in manufacturing. 
     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 Education and 
     the Workforce. 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. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of 
H.R. 645.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The 
     previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New 
     York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to 
     him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. 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. McGOVERN. 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 70, if ordered, 
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 176, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 54]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)

[[Page H722]]


     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cardenas
     Chu (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Gutierrez
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Nunnelee
     Roe (TN)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tsongas
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1405

  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, CUELLAR, Ms. HAHN, Mr. COOPER, Mrs. 
TORRES, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Chu (CA)
     Duckworth
     Gutierrez
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Nunnelee
     Roe (TN)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tsongas
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1413

  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.

                          ____________________