[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6316-H6324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3495, WOMEN'S PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY ACT, AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH
RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 444
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3495) to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow for
greater State flexibility with respect to excluding providers
who are involved in abortions. 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) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of October 1, 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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
Ms. FOXX. 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
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 444 provides a closed rule
for consideration of H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety
Act.
Over the past few months, extremely disturbing information has come
to light about the activities of abortion providers and their sale of
unborn children's hearts and other organs for compensation. In light of
those discoveries, we provide for consideration today of crucial
legislation to ensure States are free to ensure their limited
taxpayers' dollars do not provide sustaining funding to abortion
providers whose activities are found repugnant.
H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, allows States to
make a decision identical to the one this House made earlier this month
when we passed H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which
stopped the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood as
investigations continue into its sale of unborn children's parts.
As my colleagues noted during debate on H.R. 3134, arguments from the
minority that this bill will prevent women from accessing health care
ring hollow. We know that federally qualified health centers and rural
health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics at a rate of 20 to
1.
Of these over 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural
health centers, women have access to any healthcare service provided by
Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers with one obvious
exception. Because they are federally funded, these true health centers
do not perform abortions.
Clearly, despite opponents' best efforts to argue otherwise, this
bill does not deny healthcare services to women. It does allow States
to decide whether their Medicaid funds should support a provider whose
atrocities have shocked our national conscience and devalued human
life.
It is not surprising, though, that we are hearing these hollow
arguments about access to healthcare services, as the political
machinery of abortion providers has kicked into high gear with scare
tactics to protect their business. Abortion is, after all, a business.
Planned Parenthood is the single largest abortion business in the
country.
{time} 1230
Recently, they performed over 325,000 abortions in 1 year. That is
nearly 900 every day, at a rate of over 35 an hour. They are able to
continue that activity, in part, because Planned Parenthood has
received over $1 billion in 3 years from Medicaid alone. I have spoken
previously on the floor about the absurdity of providing taxpayer funds
to organizations that have had their willingness to accept compensation
for the remains of unborn children exposed for all to see.
Several States, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Indiana,
have recognized that alarming truth and acted on their own to stop
providing abortion providers with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has forced those States to
continue providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers.
Thankfully, when the Framers of our Constitution established our
Nation, they saw fit to give States a right to determine their own
affairs and the disposition of their citizens' taxes. Today, we restore
federalism to the Medicaid program and enable States to make their own
choices on which Medicaid providers to accept, allowing them to stop
the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations that accept compensation
for the sale of well-developed unborn children's hearts and bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and the underlying bill to my
colleagues for their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
My friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, says that the
minority speaks in a way that is hollow. I will tell you what is
hollow: talk about regular order in this institution.
The general public may not know that there is a methodology that
allows for all proceedings to go forward. Customarily, a measure of
this kind would have had a committee hearing and a committee markup. It
did not, and that is not regular order.
Mr. Speaker, we are now less than 48 hours away from another
government shutdown, and instead of considering a
[[Page H6317]]
continuing resolution, we are debating legislation that will limit a
woman's access to health services and make it harder for Medicaid
patients to obtain care. I wonder about States like Florida and Texas
that did not accept Medicaid money under so-called ObamaCare having
charge of Medicare and Medicaid.
Like many of my colleagues, I am frustrated that we are again wasting
precious time considering a bill crafted by ideological extremists,
which, even in the unlikely event of Senate passage, would be vetoed by
the President.
To be sure, this frustration isn't limited to my friends on this side
of the aisle. Just this week, the fight over defunding Planned
Parenthood and similar scuffles facilitated by fringe elements of the
Republican Party led to the resignation of the Speaker of the House.
And on a personal note, I would like to thank the Speaker for his
service and his forthright commentary regarding his leaving the House.
In my judgment, he has done a credible job for this institution. He had
people who would not let him do the things that were needed for all of
us in this Nation.
The Republican Conference is really divided so fervently that we can
again expect the real threat of a government shutdown in December. All
we are doing today, in the final analysis on that subject, whenever it
comes up--and it may come up today and tomorrow--is to kick the can
down the road again. The can ain't got no more space for kicking. But
we continue to do that, and this time until December, even if we are
able to avoid the one currently looming over our heads.
Mr. Speaker, current Federal law already denies Federal Medicaid
coverage of abortion except in limited circumstances, and Federal
insurance coverage of an abortion is restricted.
Instead of debating bills like the one before us today, we should be
coming together to find a balanced and responsible way to fund the
government, pass a budget that represents our constituents' priorities,
and invest in this great country.
H.R. 3495 seeks to amend title 19 of the Medicaid law to allow States
to prevent qualified providers and institutions from participating in
their Medicaid programs without a showing of cause or due process if
they have any involvement--underscore that, ``any involvement''--in
abortions, a standard which has been left undefined and certainly
vague.
Aptly termed the ``free choice of provider'' provision, title 19
currently mandates that Medicaid beneficiaries be permitted to obtain
services from any qualified provider he or she chooses and is
implemented in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' free
choice of provider regulation. This regulation also explicitly states
that under no circumstance can the free choice of provider protection
be compromised with respect to providers of family planning services.
In short, current Federal law was designated to guarantee that State
Medicaid programs provide beneficiaries with the same basic opportunity
and rights to choose and receive covered healthcare services from any
qualified provider in the same way as any member of the general
population seeking healthcare services. The legislative language of
this bill is so broad that, if enacted, it has the potential to have a
devastating impact on patient access by giving States the ability to
kick any provider out of Medicaid, including entire hospital systems,
if that provider has even an attenuated connection to abortion
services.
For example, it is entirely possible that, under this bill, a
hospital could be excluded from providing any and all services in
Medicaid if an obstetrician with admitting privileges at the same
hospital provides, or even provided in the past, abortions as a
separate part of his or her practice.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an
organization of over 57,000 physicians and partners in women's health,
have come out publicly against this legislation, as have the American
Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People. I will include those endorsements against this
measure in the Record.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), representing 57,000
physicians and partners in women's health, I urge you to vote
NO on H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
This intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into
law. In falling far short of any standard for sound federal
health legislation and policy, it would serve only to scare
providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate
care to women, and leave women without the care they need.
America needs more ob-gyns participating in the Medicaid
program; this bill would do the opposite.
I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3495 when it comes to the
House floor. Don't be fooled by the title of this bill. This
legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of
attacks against women's health.
Sincerely,
Mark S. DeFranceso,
MD, MBA, FACOG,
President.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2015.
Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3495
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), a nationwide organization with more
than a million members, activists, and supporters that fights
tirelessly to defend and preserve the individual rights and
liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United
States guarantee everyone in this country, we urge you to
vote NO on Rep. Duffy's bill, the misleadingly titled
``Women's Public Health and Safety Act.'' (H.R. 3495).
Because of the critical importance of the civil rights and
civil liberties principles involved, we will score the vote.
H.R. 3495 gives states virtually unchecked power to exclude
women's health care providers from participation in Medicaid.
It does so by undermining the longstanding free choice of
provider provision which guarantees patients the ability to
seek health care services, and specifically family planning
services, from any qualified provider. This bill would allow
states that are hostile to a woman's right to abortion in
general, and to Planned Parenthood in particular, to target
women's health providers for exclusion from Medicaid with
impunity. In so doing, the bill forces doctors and
organizations to choose between providing a constitutionally-
protected medical service that one in three women needs in
her lifetime and providing other necessary health care
services to low-income patients who already face a dearth of
qualified and willing medical professionals. Mandating such a
choice not only raises serious constitutional concerns, but
also threatens to devastate access to care for millions of
low-income women and men.
As the latest component of the ongoing smear campaign
against Planned Parenthood, this bill particularly
jeopardizes access to the high quality, affordable health
care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide. Planned
Parenthood is a critical safety-net provider. One in five
women will visit a local Planned Parenthood health center
during her lifetime, and many low-income women and women of
color rely on Planned Parenthood as their primary health care
provider. Despite the fact that numerous investigations have
already cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing, opponents
of safe, legal abortion continue to cite the deceptively
edited videos that misrepresent the organization's fetal
tissue donation practices as justification for legislation,
like H.R. 3495, that would harm women's health.
H.R. 3495 would allow states to eliminate Planned
Parenthood health centers from Medicaid without cause based
solely on political motivations, effectively denying access
to vital preventive care services, including wellness exams,
cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and
contraception to many patients. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,
and Utah have all recently attempted to do this, despite
warnings from the Department of Health and Human Services
that doing so likely violates federal law by illegally
restricting beneficiaries' access to services. As defunding
efforts in Texas and Indiana have demonstrated, eliminating
Planned Parenthood as an option for those enrolled in public
health care programs would leave a serious void that could
simply not be filled by other health care providers.
H.R. 3495 would give these states and others that share
this anti-women's health agenda broad discretion to exclude
any person, institution, agency or entity that ``performs or
participates in the performance of abortions'' from
participating in Medicaid. Not only would this mean that all
such women's health providers could be cut out of the
Medicaid program under this provision, but states could also
attempt to use it to eliminate a wide range of other health
care providers, with serious consequences for low-income
patients. For example, a hospital that provides emergency
abortions to stabilize a women's health, as required under
federal law would be barred from Medicaid under H.R. 3495,
leaving Medicaid patients without access to any care at that
hospital. Simply put, this bill is extreme and would have a
devastating impact on access to care.
The ACLU opposes H.R. 3495 and urges all members of the
House of Representatives to vote ``No.'' Should you have any
questions, please contact Georgeanne Usova.
Sincerely,
Karin Johanson,
Director.
Georgeanne M. Usova,
Legislative Counsel.
[[Page H6318]]
--National Association for -
The Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2015.
Re: NAACP Strong Opposition to H.R. 3495, a Bill to Prohibit
Federal Funding to Providers of Abortions, Including
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based
civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to oppose and
vote against H.R. 3495, which would eliminate all federal
funding to any agency which provides abortions to women,
including Planned Parenthood and its affiliates nation-wide.
To ban all federal funding for Planned Parenthood and similar
organizations would result in the elimination of a myriad of
crucial and affordable health care services; for many in the
communities we serve and represent, Planned Parenthood
clinics represent the only health care services available.
Furthermore, since a prohibition on federal funding for
abortions is already in place, there is no justification for
this reckless initiative.
The NAACP policy agenda has never taken a position on
abortions, neither in opposition nor support. We are,
however, very cognizant and very appreciative of the wide
range of health care services offered to the communities we
serve and represent by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.
The latest estimates indicate that Planned Parenthood serves
over five million clients a year, and that 75% of their
clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal
poverty level. Services provided at locations include
screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers;
contraceptives; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options
counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted
diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause
treatments; and vasectomies and tubal ligations. For many of
Planned Parenthood's patients, the annual exams received at
their facilities are the only access to health care they
have.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the position of
the NAACP; H.R. 3495 is extreme and should be opposed.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton, --
Director, NAACP Washington
Bureau & Senior Vice President
for Advocacy and Policy.
Mr. HASTINGS. The American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists stated that the bill falls far short of any standard
Federal health legislation policy, and insisted that ``it would serve
only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive,
compassionate care to women, and leave women without the care they
need.'' Moreover, the group maintains this bill would prevent OB/GYNs
from participating in the Medicaid program.
The reality is over 90 percent of the services of Planned Parenthood
and similar organizations are preventative in nature, including cancer
screenings, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and family
planning services.
Medicaid beneficiaries already have limited access to doctors, and
this bill will only restrict access for the poorest individuals in our
society.
I said last night in the Rules Committee that wealthy women in our
society don't have the problem of seeing the doctor of their choice.
Under this particular measure, poor women will be further restricted
from having the access to a physician of their choice as a Medicaid
provider.
Knowing this, the title of the bill, the Women's Public Health and
Safety Act, is as ironic as it is patronizing. H.R. 3495 will punish
the most vulnerable Americans and will prevent women from accessing the
care that keeps them safe and healthy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the question, Why haven't you done this
before? Unfortunately, the full depths to which abortion providers have
sunk was not previously public knowledge. The recent release of a
number of hidden camera videos exposing the painful dismemberment of
unborn children to facilitate the sale of their body parts by Planned
Parenthood has provided clear evidence that truly repugnant activities
are rampant in the abortion industry and that taxpayer support should
never be provided to organizations that participate in the trade of
human tissue.
One key Planned Parenthood abortionist even said: ``We've been very
good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not
gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna to
crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.''
In these days of 3-D ultrasounds and high-definition screens, it is
impossible to hide the humanity of these child victims. They have
fingers and toes, heartbeats, and organs developed enough that tissue
collectors will pay $60 a specimen for them.
In light of the serious questions raised by these videos, the House
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Oversight and
Government Reform have each launched investigations.
While Planned Parenthood does not receive direct Federal funding for
abortions, these investigations are warranted, as a recent report from
the Government Accountability Office shows that the organization
receives an average of 500 million taxpayer dollars each year for other
lines of business. Money is fungible, and the Federal funds that
Planned Parenthood receives ultimately subsidize their abortion
services.
Mr. Speaker, that is why today's legislation is so important. In
light of the atrocities uncovered in abortion facilities across the
country, it is vital that States be empowered to choose to withhold
Medicaid funds from flowing to abortion providers that deliberately
dismember unborn children to receive compensation for their organs and
other body parts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend.
{time} 1245
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3495. This bill is
misleadingly named the Women's Public Health and Safety Act when, in
fact, it puts women's and men's health at risk.
This bill would allow States to block Planned Parenthood or any other
health provider from Medicaid based on ``involvement in abortions.''
Now, millions of American women and men depend on Planned Parenthood
for essential health care.
The majority seems determined to take our Nation's healthcare system
backwards. Planned Parenthood uses Medicaid funding to provide services
like cancer screening, access to contraception, and pre-conception
counseling that helps women prepare for healthy pregnancies.
Members of Congress should stop attacking women's ability to control
their own health care. This bill disproportionately impacts low-income
women and families and unfairly takes away one of their healthcare
options.
Congress needs to get back to doing our job and stop this attack on
women's health.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For those who complain that this bill isn't properly named, let us
not forget that at least half of the unborn children who are victims of
abortion are female who would grow up to be women. Far too many
supporters of abortion on demand ignore that reality and the fact that
many abortions are sex-selection abortions.
Until they confront that, how can they parse bill titles,
particularly those that protect all existing funding for women's
health, while ensuring women and their children are not party to the
sale of tiny hearts and organs for compensation?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Maryland (Mr.
Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill very simply allows States to be partners in
the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is a partnership between the
Federal Government and the States, except too often Washington tells
the States exactly what they have to do.
This is one of those examples because this is not theoretical. There
are two States that have attempted to defund with their use of taxpayer
dollars in their States--these are not Federal tax dollars. They don't
want their State's taxpayers dollars to fund Planned Parenthood.
Instead, they want to fund other women's health services. They should
be allowed to do that.
Why should the Secretary of Health and Human Services demand that one
particular institution get funds?
Let's talk about that institution. The gentleman from Florida says,
oh, this is going to deny women health care.
[[Page H6319]]
Let me tell you who is denying women health care in my district, in
rural Lower Eastern Shore. We had a Planned Parenthood in Salisbury.
They closed up in April. On their Web site, they said: The center in
Easton will be open Monday through Friday. You can just get your care
there, our Planned Parenthood Center, which is about 45 minutes up the
road.
Mr. Speaker, just go on your tablet device and see what the hours at
the Easton Planned Parenthood are that are supposed to develop this
wonderful comprehensive health care to women in my district.
Now, if you want to go today, you are out of luck. They are closed.
Now, if you went yesterday, they were open for 7 hours, from 10 a.m. to
5 p.m. That is nice. I guess they are bankers' hours. I guess we just
assume that everybody is going to get their health care between 10 a.m.
and 5 p.m. So Monday they are open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday they
are closed.
Mr. Speaker, if one of the women in my Lower Shore want to go on
Wednesday, they are out of luck. They are closed. If they want to go on
Thursday, they are in luck. They are open for 7\1/2\ hours, from 11
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. But if they want to go on Friday, Saturday, or
Sunday, they are out of luck because Planned Parenthood is closed. They
are not delivering comprehensive services those days.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as we know, Planned Parenthood doesn't deliver
comprehensive women's health services. One of the most important
services that you can deliver to a woman of child-bearing age is
mammograms.
Not a single Planned Parenthood facility in this entire country has a
mammography machine. Now, how do you deliver a mammogram without a
mammography machine?
Mr. Speaker, it is an untruth. Planned Parenthood doesn't do
comprehensive cancer screening. Because one of the most important
screening techniques is mammography, and none of them can deliver it.
Let's contrast what the woman who is seeking comprehensive women's
health care on the Lower Eastern Shore in Maryland--what her
alternative is, because the gentleman from Florida mentions that our
Medicaid patients won't be able to be seen if we pass this bill.
The alternative is our Federally qualified health center, our
community health center, called Three Lower Counties. Now, if you go to
Three Lower Counties today, you are actually in luck because they are
open from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and they have a mammography machine as
well as the entire range of comprehensive services, with one exception.
They don't do abortions. But, then again, the other Planned Parenthoods
on the Eastern Shore of Maryland don't do it either.
So, in fact, if a woman who is on Medicaid really wants access to
comprehensive health care in my district, they have got to go past
Planned Parenthood unless--well, that is not true.
I guess, if Monday and Thursday they want their health care, they can
go to Planned Parenthood. Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, they
can't.
But they could go to one of those at my community health center. In
fact, nationwide there are only a little over 500 Planned Parenthood
facilities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HARRIS. There are 13,000 community health centers, each of which
has to have radiology facilities. That is how you get the Federal
money.
So, in fact, if we really want to let our States, by their choice--we
are not forcing States. We are not saying that a State can't fund
Planned Parenthood.
Look, I come from the State of Maryland. We will probably choose to
do it.
But a State that chooses not to should be given the option to tell
their women: If you really want it, really want comprehensive care,
well, go to one of the community health centers. That is all this bill
does.
This doesn't limit care. This expands care because this tells women:
You don't have to go to the Monday-and Thursday-only clinic that can't
give you a mammogram. You can actually go get comprehensive care
somewhere else, even if you are on Medicaid.
My biggest objection--and the gentlewoman from North Carolina hit it
on the head--is look at what else Planned Parenthood does. They
actually--and, as a physician, I find this unbelievable.
They will change the abortion technique in order to better harvest
the fetal tissue that they can then sell. That should be so morally
objectionable that we should allow States to limit that funding.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to indicate to my friend from Maryland that, while
there are 13,000 community health centers, many of them are overcrowded
to begin with and can't provide even the daytime that you mentioned in
Salisbury, all the services for various communities.
But, more important, you are correct. Planned Parenthood does not do
mammograms. But they did in the last year 500,000 breast screenings. I
could offer up anecdotal information that allows--you can go downstairs
right here to the House physician. The House physician doesn't provide
all of the services, but refers you out to GW or to Walter Reed
Bethesda.
So referring out those women, if I were to pull up the anecdotal
information of the number of women that did ultimately learn that they
had problems, those statistics justify the continuation of this
organization that provides compassionate services to women.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just 10 days ago the
House took a vote to attack women's health. At that time, I said it
felt like deja vu.
Now I am starting to wonder if this is the only issue that my
colleagues care about.
Have we taken a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank? No.
Have we taken a vote to extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
No.
Have we taken a single vote this year to fix our broken immigration
system? No.
Yet, somehow we found time to take vote after vote restricting
women's access to care. It is reprehensible.
The bill we are considering today is one of the worst yet. It is a
dangerous and unprecedented assault on women and their healthcare
providers, and it does nothing to address the real issues that
Americans are facing.
Mr. Speaker, voters didn't send us here to intimidate their doctors
and interfere in their private medical decisions.
It is time for Congress to stop wasting time and get to work. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3611, a long-
term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I am very pleased
to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida.
I rise to oppose the demand for the previous question so that we
might, in fact, take up the issue of a long-term reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank.
Something has changed. This is no longer an abstract philosophical
conversation. This is a real, manifest, concrete conversation in which
people are losing their livelihoods.
I stood here last week and reported that not one, but two, satellite
sales were likely lost. A subsequent announcement by Boeing to lay off
workers in El Segundo, California, is not abstract.
I referred to General Electric announcing that it was laying off 500
people as a result of the failure of this
[[Page H6320]]
body to do what it has done every chance it had under every President
for 81 years, almost always unanimously.
This is no longer an abstraction. People are losing their
livelihoods, and it will continue. It continued yesterday. General
Electric announced another 350 jobs lost. They are moving them from
Wisconsin to Canada.
This is not an abstraction. This is not some ideological tug of war.
You are taking away people's jobs.
And, by the way, last week, when GE announced its first layoff of
500, the spokesman for the majority party said it was immaterial. They
dismissed it. Well, if you opened up that envelope and found a pink
slip, you wouldn't think it was immaterial.
Last week I revealed a dirty little secret. I shared with you that
the Boeing aircraft company, the largest exporter in the United States
of America, the heart of our manufacturing base, didn't make airplanes.
They don't. They design and assemble them. They assemble them with
parts made mostly in America.
Now, here is today's dirty little secret: domestic content. The
Export-Import Bank requires anything it finances to be made out of 85
percent domestic content. Made in America, 85 percent.
Now, our largest exporter, in good times, finances about 1 in 5 of
its sales through the Ex-Im. But it is countercyclical. In bad times,
it is up to 40 percent, as a consequence of that material amount that
is sold. And, by the way, 70 percent of its sales are international.
They make all their airplanes with a minimum of 85 percent domestic
content.
People, stop and think. If you do away with the Ex-Im, you do away
with the 85 percent domestic content requirement.
Boeing wants to make airplanes in America with 85 percent domestic
content.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I know this because 2 years ago there was a
coalition formed to lobby to reduce the domestic content. Boeing left
the coalition because they want to make airplanes in America. If you do
away with Ex-Im, you do away with the domestic content requirement.
Six to 8,000 of the 15,000 businesses in Boeing's supply chain are
small businesses. They are small businesses. You are holding a gun to
the head of America's number one exporter and forcing them--forcing
them--by virtue of competitive disadvantage to look at and consider
outsourcing.
More pink slips. More people losing their livelihood. This is no
longer an abstraction. You are taking away people's livelihoods.
Yes, it is unilateral disarmament. Every other developed country on
the face of the planet has an export credit authority, every other one,
except us now.
In God's name, defeat the previous question.
{time} 1300
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking
about the Ex-Im Bank because they know when they talk about protecting
organizations that sell babies' hearts and lungs, they are losing.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the minority also claim that women
would no longer have access to healthcare services. It is important to
remember that this bill merely stops the Obama administration's current
practice of using Medicaid to force States into including abortionists
in their provider network. Each State can take its specific needs into
consideration when determining what, if any, action to take under this
bill. Claims that 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers
aren't sufficient fail to reflect the fact that community health
centers have grown significantly since 2010.
According to HRSA data, health centers have grown so much that, in
the years since 2010, they have acquired 3.4 million more patients, 1.9
million of whom are women. And as our colleague from Maryland pointed
out, they are often open more days and more hours than Planned
Parenthood clinics are. They are providing better and more
comprehensive services to women.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), my very good friend
who is the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and a
real champion on both these issues that we are discussing here today.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the previous question so that this House may finally get
on with the important work of supporting American jobs by reauthorizing
the charter of the Export-Import Bank.
My friends on the opposite side of the aisle claim that they support
business. They claim they support small business. They claim that this
is something that is not paid enough attention to. Yet when we have the
opportunity to support the Ex-Im Bank, what do they do? They turn it
into a political question because they want to use it to divide.
Let me tell you some facts about the Ex-Im Bank.
The Ex-Im Bank supported $27.4 billion of U.S. exports at no cost to
American taxpayers; 164,000 American jobs were supported. Nearly 90
percent of Ex-Im Bank transactions directly supported small businesses.
There was a $675 million surplus generated for American taxpayers in
funding year 2014 alone.
Ex-Im Bank's mission is American jobs. By financing the export of
American goods and services, Ex-Im Bank has supported $1.3 million
private sector, American jobs since 2009, supporting, again, 164,000
jobs in funding year 2014 alone.
So, Mr. Speaker and Members, every day that this Republican-led House
refuses to act is another day that American workers suffer the
consequences.
It has been 3 months now since Republicans shut down our Nation's
export credit agency, a vital financing tool that enables U.S.
companies both large and small to compete for sales in the global
marketplace, and businesses and their workers are feeling the pain.
The stories that we have received from across the Nation make the
unfortunate consequences of the House Republicans' shutdown of the Ex-
Im Bank distressingly clear. In describing the impact of the Ex-Im
shutdown, the chief financial officer of Chief Industries,
Incorporated, a Nebraska company that sells grain bins and elevators,
said: ``We've lost business. That's the easiest way to put it. We can't
get that business back.''
In my home State of California, the president of Combustion
Associates, Incorporated, a power plant manufacturer, said that the
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank has put her small, woman- and minority-owned
company at a ``real disadvantage,'' saying that, as a result of fierce
competition from Chinese and European firms: ``If we don't get Ex-Im
back soon, there's a very good chance we will lose three pending
contracts to one of our competitors.''
In describing the devastating consequence of losing the support of
the Ex-Im Bank, the owner of U.S. International Trading Corporation,
based in Nevada, said that the ideologically charged debate surrounding
the reauthorization ``is like being stabbed in the back by people who
should be defending you.''
Steve Wilburn, a long-time Republican and former marine, who owns a
renewable fuels company in Arizona that lost a major Philippines green
energy project due to the uncertainty over Ex-Im's future, recently
remarked: ``I never thought the day would come when the Republican
Party would somehow view a small business like mine as crony
capitalism.''
While these small businesses and many like them are unable to
successfully compete internationally without the support of the Ex-Im
Bank, some of our Nation's largest manufacturers are losing contracts
as well, with significant negative downstream consequences for the
small business suppliers that make up their vast U.S. supply chains.
Making matters worse, in recent weeks, large companies, including GE
and Boeing, have announced that the lack of export credit financing
from the Ex-Im Bank has forced those companies to move some of their
manufacturing operations abroad, where export credit financing is
readily available.
[[Page H6321]]
Mr. Speaker, we should be ashamed of this. We should be doing
everything we can to grow jobs in this country and give U.S. businesses
the tools they need to succeed.
I have said it before and will say it again, a majority of this House
supports reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank; and if we don't give
Members the opportunity to vote up or down on reopening the Bank's
doors today, the self-inflicted shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank will
continue to hurt workers and our economy. It is time to recognize the
realities of the extremely competitive international marketplace that
businesses must compete in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I don't know what they are afraid
of. They like shutting things down.
You are going to shut down something in this country that is going to
cause us to lose jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to other Members of the House.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are talking about the Ex-Im Bank because they know that when
they talk about protecting organizations that sell babies' hearts and
lungs, they are losing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, we have known for some time that Planned Parenthood is
the largest provider of abortions in this country. What we did not know
until recently was just how vile and disgusting the nature of this
organization truly is.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3495 because I believe States have
the right to refuse funding to an organization that profits from the
sale of aborted children's organs. Medicaid and CMS should not be
allowed to force States to fund these horrific practices against the
States' wishes.
The advancement of women's health should always remain a top priority
for our healthcare community. However, we can achieve this goal without
requiring States to provide access to institutions like Planned
Parenthood.
Taxpayer dollars should not be going to the killing of unborn babies.
Taxpayer dollars should not go to organizations like Planned Parenthood
that support the practice of abortion and trafficking of aborted fetal
tissue.
Taxpayer funds should go toward investigating and prosecuting the
individuals that are responsible for trafficking in the selling of
fetal tissue. Taxpayer funds should go toward the advancement of
women's health.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, but we cannot stop
here.
In addition to cutting off funding, the perpetrators behind these
heinous crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
These disgusting acts are on par with those committed by the sickest of
criminals behind bars, and that is exactly where the people who did
this belong.
I urge my colleagues to support precious, innocent lives of the
unborn.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina says
that we are discussing the Export-Import Bank because we are losing, as
she put it, on the subject that is the base bill here today. We are not
losing. This bill will pass the House of Representatives, and it will
go nowhere. Why we are discussing the Ex-Im Bank is because we need
American businesses to win.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my classmate, who is
a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule and
support the motion to defeat the previous question.
Instead of bringing a bill to the floor that will go nowhere, we
should, instead, be letting the House work its will; and we should be
voting to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Reauthorizing the Export-
Import Bank is an economic imperative.
While some of my colleagues celebrate their misguided, ideologically
driven agenda, hardworking Americans are losing their jobs, and
American businesses and exporters are being outgunned by larger export
credit agencies which are more than willing to provide financing to
America's foreign competitors.
The Bank is an unbridled, market-driven success story which has broad
bipartisan support in both Houses of this Congress as well as support
from the majority of Americans. The Bank supports hundreds of thousands
of good-paying jobs in this country.
If we fail to act now, we are shutting off a lifeline for many of our
small businesses and exporters. In my congressional district alone, the
Bank has supported thousands of small business and manufacturing jobs.
These are good jobs in a very high-need area in Texas that would not
have been possible without the Bank. These jobs are now in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my GOP colleagues to let common sense regain a
foothold in this House. We have the votes. Let Congress work its will
and allow a vote on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to how I began my remarks today, and
that is to say that the measure before us has not gone through regular
order in the House of Representatives. There were no hearings, no
markup. It just showed up in the rules for us. And somehow or another,
that seems to be a pattern that is developing around here, where we are
not legislating, we are rulemaking. In the final analysis, many Members
and their constituents are being shut out.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to have an abortion is obviously a very,
very difficult decision for a woman, and it is one that must be made,
in my judgment--and my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) always says
that it is not the Oversight Committee's--which is hearing right now,
as we speak, from Planned Parenthood providers--or the Energy and
Commerce Committee's decision for a woman's right to choose. The
freedom of choice measure, since 1960, has been a part of Medicaid in
this country, and now we would tear that fabric and divide this country
with an issue that the only committee that should be in charge is the
committee formed by a woman, her doctor, and God.
{time} 1315
There is no place for the ideological whims of politicians in that
determination. I said last night I know where this is headed. I have
seen it now for 22 years. What the ultimate objective is is not this
legislation today or the legislation that we considered 2 weeks ago or
legislation like this that they have considered. For 22 years that I
have been here, it has been headed toward trying to reverse Roe v.
Wade.
Like it or not, the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade conferred
upon women the right to do with their own bodies what they determine
best until the point of viability. It is unfathomable to me and
countless others around this country and the world that we continue to
entertain attacks on poor women's health to satisfy the extreme
political agenda of a few in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often
articulate their support for measures such as the one we are
considering today by insisting that it is our duty to protect the most
vulnerable in society. To those individuals I ask: How does eliminating
critical health services to our country's most poor and preventing
those same individuals from being able to see the doctors of their
choice that they know and trust help them to accomplish this worthwhile
goal?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and against this rule and the underlying bill. I want
to ask us to get back to regular order and let us get into legislating.
No, my colleague from North Carolina, we are not losing. We asked on
the Export-Import measure to allow for American businesses to win.
Everybody here knows that this legislation, once it passes the House of
Representatives, is going to get lost in that nowhere forest. I said
last night, and I listened to
[[Page H6322]]
my granddaughter saying, ``Let It Go.'' The words are different to this
particular situation today, but the title of the song should be heard
as a mantra by the Republican Party on the subject of the rights of
women and their choice. They should just let it go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My colleagues continue to hold up regular order as an excuse for
their unwillingness to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to
organizations that dismember children. Thankfully, there are committee
hearings being held on this issue even now that will continue to expose
the wrongs of the abortion industry. Here today, though, we take the
simple step of stopping funding to organizations that sell children's
body parts.
My colleague's newfound affection for regular order is a poor
objection to the passage of this legislation to protect women and
children from being parties to trafficking in human tissue. It is not
extreme to want to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn, from having
their body parts being sold and the use of taxpayer dollars to aid such
enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about outrageous activities that are
ongoing in the abortion industry as it takes apart tiny babies with
beating hearts and cute little fingers and toes. It is truly saddening
that the reaction in this Chamber isn't unanimous agreement that the
clinics where this has occurred be closed and those responsible be
sanctioned for their reprehensible actions. We haven't even been able
to come to agreement with those on the other side that Federal grants
to these organizations from the Department of Health and Human Services
stop immediately.
Now we try again to find common ground. Today, the legislation before
us would take the small but vital step of allowing those States that
choose, and only those States, to stop funding abortion providers
through Medicaid. This legislation wouldn't tell New York or
Massachusetts or California that they can't give their taxpayer dollars
to an organization that sells body parts. It would, however, enable
Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, or Indiana to do so.
The principle of federalism, that Americans are free to come together
with others in their community and establish the principles by which
they will govern themselves, is a bedrock for our Nation. Even if
opponents of this legislation have become callous to the unheard cries
of unborn children dismembered for compensation, they should rally to
the cause of federalism in order to allow their own communities to
exercise the freedom it protects.
What a sad day it is when we can no longer even unite around our
founding principles, one of which was that life is the first
unalienable right. When we ignore the need to protect that right for
the smallest of our brothers and sisters, we should not be surprised by
the erosion of our other rights, including the right to self-governance
prohibited by federalism.
The exposure of the ongoing tragedy of crushed young lives must spur
us to unite to stop this imposition of Federal power on States and
their citizens and restore to them the choice of protecting children
from being sold as organ donors before even taking their first breath.
This is what H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, would
accomplish, and I commend it and this rule providing for its
consideration to my colleagues for their support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 444 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
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.
3611) to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, 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 Financial Services. 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. 3611.
____
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.
Ms. FOXX. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 182, not voting 9, as follows:
[[Page H6323]]
[Roll No. 521]
YEAS--243
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
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
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, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
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, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Ellison
Hudson
Kelly (IL)
Larson (CT)
McDermott
Payne
Reichert
Sanchez, Loretta
Westmoreland
{time} 1349
Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Ms. BASS, and Mr.
NORCROSS changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. FINCHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. 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 242,
noes 183, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 522]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
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 (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
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, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
[[Page H6324]]
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Frelinghuysen
Hudson
Kelly (IL)
Larson (CT)
McDermott
Payne
Reichert
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (TX)
{time} 1357
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.
Personal Explanation
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 29th I missed two
votes on Ordering the Previous Question and House Resolution 444. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________