[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H37-H51]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3762, RESTORING 
        AMERICANS' HEALTHCARE FREEDOM RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 579

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3762) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 
     of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2016, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 
     the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. 
     The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
     read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective 
     designees. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  Section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 5 is amended 
     by striking ``the first session of''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 579 provides for the 
consideration of the Senate-amended version of H.R. 3762, Restoring 
Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, you will recall that, on October 23 of last year, the 
House passed our reconciliation bill, which went through the process, 
which went through regular order. The Senate amended that bill in 
December. It is now back in the House for further consideration.
  This rule today also provides an extension of deposition authority, 
Mr. Speaker, for staff members who serve the Committees on Energy and 
Commerce; Financial Services; Science, Space, and Technology; and Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great way to start 2016. There is a new 
sheriff in town, as you know, who has a commitment to regular order, 
and the process we have today is regular order at its finest.
  We are here today on a reconciliation provision that came from the 
United States Senate. It came from the United States Senate because it 
was first passed by the United States House. It was passed by the 
United States House because, for the first time in over a decade, we 
had a conferenced budget agreement coming to balance, to govern these 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, I have been in this institution. For 5 
years, I have served on the Budget Committee. For 5 years, I have 
served on the Rules Committee. Never before has this House considered a 
reconciliation measure that will, with its passage today, go to the 
President's desk tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not care where you are on the policy. This is an 
issue of repealing the President's healthcare bill and the damaging 
impact it has had on my constituents across the district. I doubt 
seriously there is a Member in this body who has not made up his or her 
mind on where he or she is on this issue.
  I will try to persuade no one on the merits today. What I will do, 
Mr. Speaker, is tell you that, when you get the process right, you have 
an opportunity to get the policy right, too.
  This bill eliminates the penalty for noncompliance with the 
individual mandate, that individual mandate that changed the nature of 
the relationship between the governed and the governing. This bill 
would eliminate the penalty for noncompliance with the employer 
mandate.

[[Page H38]]

  It would eliminate the controversial reinsurance program. It would 
repeal the IRS' ability to provide insurance premium tax credits and 
cost-sharing subsidies. It would repeal the costly Medicare expansion. 
It would increase our investment in community health centers. All told, 
this bill would save the American people $500 billion.
  I am not so naive as to believe that this bill is going to be the end 
of the story today, Mr. Speaker. But I celebrate the fact that, with 
the passage of this rule, we will have an opportunity to vote and an 
opportunity to act in ways that we have not year, upon year, upon year. 
I do not believe our mandate in this House is to agree. I think our 
mandate in this House is to decide, and we cannot decide with a process 
that is broken. We must have a process that is open, as this process 
has been.
  Mr. Speaker, the President raised the American consciousness as it 
relates to the discussion of health care in this country. He persuaded 
the American people that preexisting conditions have no place in the 
American body politic. I believe he was right on that. I don't believe 
that will ever change.
  He persuaded the American people that insurance policies shouldn't 
have lifetime caps, that when you are facing your deepest and your 
worst fears in your family--when those have come true--that you ought 
not get bad news from your insurance company on that same day. I agree 
with him on that. I don't think we will ever change that.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are folks in my district who had policies 
that they counted on but that were canceled. There are businesses in my 
district that had a commitment to take care of their employees, but 
they have now been priced out of the market. There are folks who wanted 
to exercise their choices and not the President's choice.
  If you go to the most recent Rasmussen polls, the American people 
prioritized lowering costs over universal coverage. I am committed to 
providing health care to those who cannot afford it, but I am committed 
to lowering costs for those who can.
  The free market is the mechanism that we will use to lower costs. 
With this repeal today, we have an opportunity to begin that discussion 
in earnest for the first time in 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chair, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, your committee's authority 
     to conduct staff depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of H. 
     Res. 5 (114th Congress) expires at the end of the legislative 
     session. I am currently considering whether to recommend to 
     the Committee on Rules an extension of that authority for the 
     remainder of the 114th Congress.
       In order to ensure that the Rules Committee has all of the 
     information necessary to fully consider whether to grant an 
     extension of this authority, I would appreciate it if you 
     could provide responses to the following items no later than 
     5 p.m. on December 8, 2015:
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests? How many times would you estimate that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules Committee should extend this 
     authority for your committee for the remainder of the 
     Congress.
       Thank you for your assistance in providing this information 
     so the Committee on Rules can fully consider an extension of 
     this authority. Should you or your staff have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact either myself or the Rules 
     Committee's staff director, Hugh Halpern.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Sessions.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     discuss our interest in the authority provided by Section 
     3(b) of H.Res. 5, providing staff deposition authority to the 
     Energy and Commerce Committee, among other committees of the 
     House.
       We have appreciated your support of our efforts to conduct 
     thoughtful and effective oversight of the laws passed by 
     Congress. As you well know, such oversight activities are an 
     integral part of our Article 1 responsibilities. This is 
     especially true at a time when the policy objectives of the 
     Executive branch have regularly led it to exceed clear 
     statutory direction, and its representatives are regularly 
     recalcitrant in providing us with explanations for those 
     actions.
       My goal has been, wherever possible, to work cooperatively 
     with the subjects of our oversight work to accomplish the 
     committee's objectives. The Congress's oversight tools are 
     overwhelmingly powerful, and in order to maintain public 
     trust in our stewardship of those tools, I have felt that it 
     is important for us to use the use of our authority in a way 
     that is prudent and proportional.
       But there are clearly times when the legitimate 
     Congressional oversight prerogative requires the threat of 
     compulsion. This is why we believe the authority provided to 
     the committee in H.Res. 5 has been valuable to the 
     committee's oversight objectives. While the committee has not 
     yet been required to conduct depositions under this new 
     authority, we believe the availability of this authority has 
     facilitated our efforts to obtain significant voluntary 
     cooperation in several important investigations. For example, 
     in the matter related to videotapes showing procurement of 
     donated fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America and a number of its affiliates, as well as several 
     tissue procurement organizations, have voluntarily provided 
     thousands of pages of relevant documents. In a matter related 
     to allegations of contamination at a National Institutes of 
     Health drug manufacturing facility, the committee has 
     received detailed information concerning the impact of such 
     contamination on hundreds of patients in experimental drug 
     trials. And, in the recent matter related to ``defeat 
     devices'' installed by Volkswagen in thousands of its diesel-
     engine cars, the committee has begun to receive detailed 
     information regarding internal corporate deliberations and 
     interactions with Federal and state regulators. In each of 
     these cases, we believe these significant voluntary 
     productions of documents and information are due in large 
     part to an understanding that the committee has the authority 
     to compel such information, including now through compulsory 
     depositions.
       We also believe that the authority to compel staff 
     depositions will be an especially important tool in 
     investigations of the executive branch. In an ongoing matter 
     regarding the Administration's justification for subsidies 
     paid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 
     senior executive branch representatives have repeatedly 
     ignored requests by our committee and the Ways and Means 
     committee for relevant information. The committees recently 
     wrote to Secretaries Burwell and Lew requesting interviews 
     with specific senior executive branch officials. I expect 
     that these requests will almost certainly involve invocation 
     of authority provided by Section 3(b) of H.Res 5. Similarly, 
     as the committee continues its oversight of other aspects of 
     the ACA, including the failure of state exchanges and 
     cooperatives, it is becoming aware of serious issucs of waste 
     and negligent program administration. As the current 
     Administration enters its eighth and final year, and works 
     feverishly to implement its policy objectives, I expect there 
     will be other areas where we will need every oversight tool 
     available, including staff deposition authority, to ensure 
     that the Administration is faithfully executing the laws 
     enacted by Congress, and holding itself accountable for the 
     prudent and efficient expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.
       Thank you again for your work to provide us with the tools 
     to do effective oversight and ensuring that these tools 
     continue to be available.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
     Chair, Committee on Financial Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, your committee's authority 
     to conduct staff depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of H. 
     Res. 5 (114th Congress) expires at the end of the legislative 
     session. I am currently considering whether to recommend to 
     the Committee on Rules an extension of that authority for the 
     remainder of the 114th Congress.
       In order to ensure that the Rules Committee has all of the 
     information necessary to fully consider whether to grant an 
     extension of this authority, I would appreciate it if you 
     could provide responses to the following items no later than 
     5 p.m. on December 8, 2015:
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests? How many times would you estimate that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules

[[Page H39]]

     Committee should extend this authority for your committee for 
     the remainder of the Congress.
       Thank you for your assistance in providing this information 
     so the Committee on Rules can fully consider an extension of 
     this authority. Should you or your staff have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact either myself or the Rules 
     Committee's staff director, Hugh Halpern.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Sessions.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions: This is to request that the 
     Committee on Rules extend the authority of the Committee on 
     Financial Services (Committee) to conduct staff depositions 
     pursuant to section 3(b) of H. Res. 5 which expires at the 
     end of the present legislative session. Your letter of 
     December 2, 2015, asks the Committee to provide the Committee 
     on Rules with the following three categories of information 
     in support of the Committee's request to extend deposition 
     authority:
       1. The number of depositions the Committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during the present legislative session;
       2. Whether having deposition authority was helpful in 
     obtaining voluntary interviews of individuals in the course 
     of the Committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests, and the estimated number of times that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interview compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise; and
       3. A rationale, including any relevant examples, for why 
     the Committee on Rules should extend this authority to the 
     Committee for the remainder of the Congress.
       The Committee has conducted no depositions pursuant to the 
     authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 5. However, 
     having deposition authority was and continues to be an 
     invaluable tool in securing interviews and compliance with 
     document requests. In the course of a single investigation, 
     Committee staff conducted sixteen informal interviews of 
     officials at three different agencies. As part of the same 
     investigation, the Committee also sent interrogatories to a 
     former government official and received a sworn written 
     response in lieu of an interview. These interviews and 
     interrogatories elicited crucial information that will be 
     included in a Committee staff report that is expected to be 
     released in early 2016.
       The Committee's deposition authority has been a useful tool 
     in securing agency compliance with the Committee's subpoenas 
     and information requests. During the First Session of the 
     114th Congress the Committee sent four subpoenas duces tecum 
     to four federal agencies. Three of these agencies ignored the 
     Committee's subpoena until the Committee threatened to 
     conduct transcribed interviews or depositions with agency 
     officials responsible for delaying the production of the 
     subpoenaed records, and the fourth will be sent a similar 
     request for depositions or transcribed interviews in the near 
     future.
       Deposition authority continues to be critical to the 
     Committee's oversight of an Administration that has been 
     markedly indifferent to the Committee's subpoenas and 
     voluntary information requests. The Committee also 
     anticipates that it will be necessary to use its deposition 
     authority in the near future as part of its oversight of 
     independent federal agencies under its jurisdiction. The 
     Committee will likely continue to face obstruction from this 
     Administration concerning future information requests and, 
     accordingly, will need to utilize its deposition authority to 
     effectuate full and prompt compliance with respect to these 
     future requests.
       Lastly, the Committee's deposition authority should be 
     modestly expanded to cover individuals who have recently left 
     the federal government in order to prevent agency officials 
     from sidestepping congressional investigations by resigning 
     from their government positions. Under the Committee's 
     current deposition authority, agency officials involved in 
     wrongdoing or otherwise under investigation can effectively 
     avoid the Committee's efforts to interview or depose them by 
     resigning from their government posts. If key officials 
     should leave their positions before being deposed or 
     interviewed, those officials involved in possible wrongdoing 
     in connection with their government employment could 
     strategically avoid being held accountable by Congress and, 
     as a result, several of the Committee's investigations may be 
     significantly hampered by such departures.
       Several federal employees previously under investigation by 
     the Committee have already left government service and it is 
     likely that other officials will follow suit, particularly 
     because the Administration's last year will coincide with the 
     Second Session of this Congress. Accordingly, expanding the 
     Committee's deposition authority to include former agency 
     officials provided that (1) such officials served in the 
     federal government within two years of being served with a 
     deposition subpoena and (2) the purpose of the deposition 
     relates to their government employment, would greatly 
     strengthen the Committee's ability to conduct effective 
     oversight of the Administration's last year, as it would 
     allow the Committee to investigate and conduct effective 
     oversight of officials who have recently left or might 
     otherwise choose to leave their positions as the 
     Administration winds down.
       Should you need additional information, please have your 
     staff contact the Committee's Chief Oversight Counsel, Uttam 
     Dhillon. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chair, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, your committee's authority 
     to conduct staff depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of H. 
     Res. 5 (114th Congress) expires at the end of the legislative 
     session. I am currently considering whether to recommend to 
     the Committee on Rules an extension of that authority for the 
     remainder of the 114th Congress.
       In order to ensure that the Rules Committee has all of the 
     information necessary to fully consider whether to grant an 
     extension of this authority, I would appreciate it if you 
     could provide responses to the following items no later than 
     5 p.m. on December 8, 2015:
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests? How many times would you estimate that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules Committee should extend this 
     authority for your committee for the remainder of the 
     Congress.
       Thank you for your assistance in providing this information 
     so the Committee on Rules can fully consider an extension of 
     this authority. Should you or your staff have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact either myself or the Rules 
     Committee's staff director, Hugh Halpern.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Sessions.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2015.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions: Thank you for your letter 
     concerning the Committee on Ways and Means' authority to 
     conduct staff depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5. Staff deposition authority is a powerful tool that has 
     been extremely effective in gaining access to information 
     that the Administration has been reluctant to provide. 
     Reauthorization of this authority is essential for the 
     Committee to exercise its oversight responsibility and ensure 
     that the Administration is held accountable to the American 
     people. Over the past year, this authority has been a 
     valuable tool that has enhanced our oversight of the 
     Administration and regulated entities.
       The Committee has not yet needed to exercise compulsory 
     process to depose individuals, as the deposition authority 
     has been a successful means of encouraging voluntary 
     compliance with the Committee's requests. It may become 
     necessary in the near future to exercise staff deposition 
     authority to obtain information from an Administration that 
     is increasingly obstructing the Committee's oversight work. I 
     appreciate your interest in how this authority has aided our 
     oversight work, and I have provided answers to your questions 
     below.
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       Response: The Ways and Means Committee has not needed to 
     compel depositions in 2015, largely because the threat of 
     using this authority has been successful in urging voluntary 
     cooperation with the Committee's oversight. However, the 
     Committee is in the process of requesting interviews with 
     eight Administration officials in the course of its 
     investigation of the Administration's decision to pay Cost 
     Sharing Reduction subsidies, despite the fact that Congress 
     did not appropriate funds for that purpose. The Committee has 
     notified the Administration that if these eight officials are 
     not produced for interviews willingly, the Committee will use 
     compulsory process. More information on this investigation is 
     provided in response to Question 3.
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight in obtaining cooperation with document 
     requests? How many times would you estimate that this 
     authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance with 
     investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       Response: Staff deposition authority was effective in 
     facilitating voluntary interviews in the course of the 
     Committee's oversight work. We estimate that the Committee 
     has

[[Page H40]]

     gained access to two Administration officials in the course 
     of two separate investigations into the Administration's 
     funding of the Cost Sharing Reduction program and the IRS's 
     obstruction of tax exempt applications by conservative 
     organizations. In the course of the Committee's Cost Sharing 
     Reduction investigation the Committee also sought and 
     obtained document productions from nine insurance companies 
     and a national insurance trade organization. Several of those 
     companies were reluctant to produce documents, and oral 
     reference to the Committee's authority to subpoena documents 
     and depose the companies' employees encouraged voluntary 
     compliance with our requests. More information about each of 
     these successes is provided below.
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules Committee should extend this 
     authority for your committee for the remainder of the 
     Congress.
       Response: Staff deposition authority has been a key factor 
     in several investigations conducted by the Oversight 
     Subcommittee. Three examples illustrate this fact:
       During the course of the Committee's investigation on the 
     Internal Revenue Service (IRS) unfairly targeting 
     conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status, 
     the Administration was reluctant to cooperate with requests 
     to produce certain witnesses for interviews. One such witness 
     was Hannah Stott-Bumsted, who served as legal counsel to the 
     U.S. Department of the Treasury. During the course of the 
     investigation, staff discovered that the Administration knew 
     that some of Lois Lerner's e-mails were missing months before 
     the IRS informed the Committee. From our interviews, 
     Committee staff knew that an IRS employee, Catherine Duval, 
     likely told her friend, Stott-Bumsted, that the e-mails were 
     missing and that Stott-Bumsted then informed others in the 
     Administration. The Committee requested an interview with 
     Stott-Bumsted to confirm this information, but the Treasury 
     Department dragged out the request for months. When staff 
     suggested that the Committee would depose Stott-Bumsted if 
     Treasury would not produce her voluntarily for an interview, 
     Treasury agreed to produce her.
       The Ways and Means Committee, along with the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee, is investigating the Administration's 
     decision to fund several programs established by the 
     President's health care law, including Cost Sharing Reduction 
     subsidies and the Basic Health Program, through an 
     appropriation reserved specifically for tax refunds. The 
     Committees believe that the method the Administration has 
     used to fund the Cost Sharing Reduction program and the Basic 
     Health Program may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and 
     Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution 
     establishing Congress's appropriation authority. The Treasury 
     Department and the Department of Health and Human Services 
     (HHS) have refused to produce documents in response to the 
     Committees' inquiries. The Committees are in the process of 
     requesting interviews of Treasury and HHS employees. The 
     Committees already have interviewed a senior HHS official 
     regarding the Basic Health Program, and staff believes it was 
     unlikely that the Administration would have produced that 
     official for an informal interview if the Committees did not 
     have deposition authority. As the Administration continues to 
     ignore Congress's requests for information, deposition 
     authority will be a crucial tool in order to proceed with 
     these investigations.
       While investigating the Administration's funding of the 
     Cost Sharing Reduction program, the Committee determined that 
     insurance companies might possess relevant information. The 
     Committee sought information and documents from nine 
     insurance companies and the trade organization America's 
     Health Insurance Plans. Although some companies complied 
     willingly with the request, others were reluctant to search 
     for or produce documents. During negotiations with those 
     companies, the Committee was able to persuade those companies 
     to produce documents by threatening to issue subpoenas and 
     depose employees. Fearing the reputational and financial 
     consequences of receiving a publicized subpoena or deposition 
     notification, the companies complied with the Committee's 
     requests.
       Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and 
     for giving the Committee the opportunity to highlight the 
     value of deposition authority in its oversight work. If you 
     have any additional questions about the Committee's use of 
     staff deposition authority, please do not hesitate to contact 
     Tegan Gelfand with the Ways and Means Committee staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
                                  ____

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chair, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, your committee's authority 
     to conduct staff depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of H. 
     Res. 5 (114th Congress) expires at the end of the legislative 
     session. I am currently considering whether to recommend to 
     the Committee on Rules an extension of that authority for the 
     remainder of the 114th Congress.
       In order to ensure that the Rules Committee has all of the 
     information necessary to fully consider whether to grant an 
     extension of this authority, I would appreciate it if you 
     could provide responses to the following items no later than 
     5 p.m. on December 8, 2015:
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests? How many times would you estimate that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules Committee should extend this 
     authority for your committee for the remainder of the 
     Congress.
       Thank you for your assistance in providing this information 
     so the Committee on Rules can fully consider an extension of 
     this authority. Should you or your staff have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact either myself or the Rules 
     Committee's staff director, Hugh Halpern.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Sessions.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2015.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions: On December 3, 2015, I received 
     your letter regarding the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology's authority to conduct staff depositions pursuant 
     to section 3(b) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress). As you 
     indicated, the Committee's deposition authority expires at 
     the end of this session. I appreciate the opportunity to 
     highlight the many positive results the Committee has 
     obtained utilizing its deposition authority. I believe the 
     following responses to questions posed in your letter 
     reaffirms that deposition authority is a necessary tool for 
     conducting robust oversight of the executive branch and 
     limiting the overreaches of the Administration in its final 
     year.
       1. How many depositions has your committee conducted 
     pursuant to the authority granted by section 3(b) of H. Res. 
     5 (114th Congress) during this legislative session?
       On September 17, 2015, the Committee conducted a deposition 
     of National Weather Service (NWS) contract specialist Mark 
     Miller, who facilitated an inappropriate contract that cost 
     taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. In 2009, then-
     National Weather Service Deputy Chief Financial Officer Peter 
     Jiron prepared to retire from the NWS. Mr. Jiron's 
     supervisor, then-Chief Financial Officer Robert Byrd, 
     suggested Mr. Jiron return to the NWS post-retirement as a 
     consultant. One month before officially retiring from the 
     NWS, Mr. Jiron negotiated the terms of his consultancy, 
     drafted and edited the associated Statement of Work, dratted 
     terms and conditions of his contract with NWS as a 
     consultant, and eventually signed the consulting agreement. 
     The contract Mr. Jiron drafted for himself increased his 
     salary and provided for housing at the expense of American 
     taxpayers. This contract is a violation of federal laws and 
     regulations because Mr. Jiron used his influential position 
     at NWS to obtain the consulting position.
       According to a report by the Department of Commerce Office 
     of Inspector General, Mr. Miller had no concerns with Mr. 
     Jiron becoming a consultant immediately after his retirement 
     from the agency and had heard of other employees doing the 
     same thing. Mr. Miller's statement raises questions about 
     whether this type of contract misconduct occurs regularly. 
     Indeed, the OIG found the ``lack of understanding about 
     applicable laws and regulations on the part of multiple NOAA 
     officials'' so concerning that the OIG is ``taking steps to 
     ascertain whether this matter is indicative of more systemic 
     `revolving door' contracting problems within the agency. 
     Unfortunately, several former senior officials refused to 
     speak to the Committee voluntarily. After the Department of 
     Commerce failed to adequately respond to multiple letters 
     from the Committee requesting information, the Committee 
     determined the best course of action was to interview Mark 
     Miller because of his role facilitating Mr. Jiron's contract.
       Because Mr. Miller is not a senior official at NWS and 
     there is no evidence indicating he intentionally committed 
     wrongdoing, the Committee requested to speak with him in a 
     private setting. Through his attorney, Mr. Miller refused to 
     voluntarily speak with Committee staff. Consequently, the 
     Committee issued a subpoena compelling Mr. Miller's testimony 
     in a deposition. During the deposition, Mr. Miller invoked 
     his 5th Amendment right. While Mr. Miller did not speak on 
     the record, the deposition made it possible for the Committee 
     to pursue immunity for Mr. Miller. Majority staff is 
     currently in discussions with Minority staff about moving 
     forward with immunity for Mr. Miller. This is significant 
     because the Committee not only has the opportunity to learn 
     what happened during the creation of Mr. Jiron's contract, 
     but also gives the Committee an opportunity to determine 
     whether it is a common occurrence for departing NWS officials 
     to draft their own consulting

[[Page H41]]

     contracts and whether legislation is necessary to remedy the 
     issue. Given Mr. Miller's knowledge of the agency's 
     contracting methods, he is in a unique position to provide 
     information regarding whether such incidents are a systemic 
     problem. The Committee is continuing to move forward with 
     this issue in large part because of deposition authority, 
     including the ability to recall Mr. Miller to continue his 
     deposition.
       2. Was having this authority helpful in obtaining voluntary 
     interviews of one or more individuals in the course of your 
     committee's oversight or in obtaining cooperation with 
     document requests? How many times would you estimate that 
     this authority resulted in voluntary interviews compliance 
     with investigative requests that might not have been possible 
     otherwise?
       Yes, during this session there are numerous instances of 
     the Committee obtaining documents and voluntary interviews 
     because of its deposition authority. In fact, as the 
     following examples show, many key interviews and documents 
     would likely not have been obtained without the Committee's 
     ability to compel on-the-record interviews in a private 
     setting.


                     nws: contracting mismanagement

       Earth Resources Technology (ERT), the consulting firm who 
     employed former National Weather Service (NWS) Deputy Chief 
     Financial Officer Peter Jiron after he drafted his own post-
     retirement contract, was reluctant to speak with Committee 
     staff. The company is a women-owned small business that 
     apparently did not intentionally facilitate the inappropriate 
     contract. Appearing at a public hearing would likely have 
     been embarrassing for the company's CEO, Dr. Jingli Yang. As 
     a result, after reviewing the Committee's rules regarding 
     compulsory process for depositions, Dr. Yang's representative 
     agreed to make her available voluntarily.
       During the Committee's questioning of Dr. Yang, she 
     acknowledged flaws in the contracting system that allowed Mr. 
     Jiron's contract to move forward. For instance, there was not 
     a safeguard in place to ensure that new ERT contractors were 
     not current government employees. ERT relied on each new 
     contractor to receive permission from ethics officials at 
     individual agencies, but did not keep track internally. As a 
     result of the Committee's questioning, ERT is implementing a 
     plan to include additional steps in its contracting process 
     when hiring new contractors, including paperwork to ensure 
     contractors are not currently government employees. 
     Additionally, ERT provided e-mails to the Committee regarding 
     the facilitation of Mr. Jiron's consulting contract.
       Furthermore, during the Committee's investigation of 
     contracting misconduct at NWS, the agency initially refused 
     to provide documents or make agency officials available to 
     the Committee. After the Committee considered the use of 
     compulsory process for agency officials to appear for 
     interviews, the agency agreed to provide several key 
     officials voluntarily, including Laura Furgione, the Deputy 
     Assistant Administrator of NWS. Moreover, after the Committee 
     requested to speak with additional NWS employees, the agency 
     voluntarily began producing documents and information. Among 
     the documents produced were e-mails between Mr. Jiron and Mr. 
     Byrd, the former Chief Financial Officer at NWS, discussing 
     Mr. Jiron's improper consulting contract.


                    noaa: questionable climate study

       This past summer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration (NOAA) released a study refuting the long-
     established findings that warming of the earth experienced a 
     hiatus during much of that past two decades. This study has 
     large implications because it changes historical temperature 
     data to show increased warming and is therefore used to 
     justify costly regulations and further action on climate 
     change. Shortly after publication of the study, the Committee 
     began investigating the circumstances surrounding its 
     release, sending a letter to NOAA requesting documents and 
     information related to the publication of the study. After 
     NOAA's unwillingness to produce communications related to the 
     study, the Committee issued a subpoena in October 2013, The 
     Committee continues to investigate the publication of this 
     study, especially in light of whistleblower allegations that 
     divulged potential political interference with the scientific 
     process and that NOAA scientists were uncomfortable with the 
     study's methodology and conclusions. While NOAA has still not 
     produced all requested and subpoenaed communications, NOAA 
     agreed to make the authors of the study available voluntarily 
     for questioning by Committee staff.
       Additionally, following the Committee's subpoena in October 
     2013 to NOAA for communications related to the study refuting 
     a hiatus in the rise of earth's temperature, NOAA officials 
     refused to comply with the subpoena. Shortly thereafter, the 
     Committee informed NOAA of its need to interview agency 
     officials who had a significant role in the agency's 
     publication and release of the study. Following conversations 
     with NOAA officials informing the agency of the Committee's 
     ability to compel testimony, NOAA has agreed to arrange for 
     the requested individuals to meet voluntarily with Committee 
     staff.


                   nist: manufacturing illegal drugs

       On July 18, 2015, National Institute of Standards (NIST) 
     Police Officer Christopher Bartley caused an explosion on the 
     NIST campus while attempting to manufacture the illegal drug 
     methamphetamine. The Committee sent a letter requesting 
     documents and information on July 22, 2015. NIST officials 
     initially insisted that the matter was being managed by the 
     Department of Commerce Officer of Inspector General and law 
     enforcement officials. After considering the use of 
     compulsory process to obtain interviews with agency staff 
     regarding NIST's unresponsiveness, NIST agreed to voluntarily 
     make Willie Mays, the Director of NIST, available to 
     Committee staff.
       During questioning by Committee staff, Director May 
     acknowledged for the first time the existence of building 
     records revealing the names of each individual NIST employee 
     that entered the building where the explosion occurred. After 
     obtaining the building records, Committee staff was able to 
     track the movements of Mr. Bartley and who he interacted with 
     leading up to the explosion. Despite telling Committee staff 
     that four officers are on duty at all times at NIST, the 
     building records reveal that only two officers were on duty 
     during the explosion. The Committee continues to investigate 
     misconduct and mismanagement at NIST Police Services.


                            EPA: Pebble Mine

       During the course of the Committee's ongoing investigation 
     into EPA's actions to limit the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, 
     Alaska, the Committee learned information concerning an EPA 
     regional administrator's involvement in spearheading the 
     EPA's actions to stop construction of the mine. When the 
     Committee spoke with EPA officials, explaining the 
     Committee's need to interview the regional administrator and 
     explaining the Committee's ability to compel testimony, the 
     EPA responded that it would make the regional administrator 
     available to the Committee voluntarily to answer questions 
     from Committee staff and for testimony at a congressional 
     hearing.


                       EPA: Regulatory Overreach

       During the Committee's ongoing oversight of the EPA's 
     regulatory and policy agenda, the Committee sent letters on 
     three separate matters in May of this year, requesting 
     documents concerning the agency's coordination with outside 
     environmental groups, proposed Waters of the United States 
     rule, and the agency's efforts to solicit public comments on 
     EPA regulations during the notice and comment period for 
     proposed ru1emakings. In the face of the agency's continued 
     slow rolling of its response to each of the three letters, 
     Committee staff spoke with agency officials, explaining the 
     Committee's authority to compel testimony from agency 
     officials directly relevant to each of the three inquiries. 
     Following the Committee's conversations with the EPA 
     explaining its authority, the agency began producing 
     documents responsive to the Committee's requests. 
     Additionally, the EPA agreed to make an agency official 
     directly relevant to the Committee's inquiries available 
     voluntarily for a briefing.
       In September 2015, the Committee wrote to the EPA 
     concerning its plans to issue a proposed rule for ozone 
     National Ambient Air Quality Standards and requesting 
     interviews with two agency officials relevant to the 
     Committee's inquiry. During follow-up conversations with the 
     EPA concerning the Committee's request for interviews and 
     following significant push back from the EPA to making the 
     individuals available, Committee staff explained the 
     Committee's authority to compel testimony. Following these 
     discussions, the Committee expects that the EPA will 
     voluntarily provide a briefing on the matter with individuals 
     relevant to the Committee's inquiry.
       3. Please provide your rationale, including any relevant 
     examples, for why the Rules Committee should extend this 
     authority for your committee for the remainder of the 
     Congress.
       As evidenced by the many examples discussed in this letter, 
     the Committee's deposition authority has been a critical tool 
     used to further the Committee's oversight. The Committee's 
     authority to compel testimony has proven to be a key resource 
     in obtaining compliance from Executive Branch departments and 
     agencies with outstanding document and information requests, 
     as well as with obtaining access to government officials 
     essential to the Committee's inquiries for questioning by 
     Committee staff.
       As the Obama Administration comes to an end in the next 
     year, the administration is working vigorously to finalize 
     more expansive regulations than ever to fulfill its 
     environmental agenda. Because of the administration's 
     tireless efforts, it is even more imperative for the 
     Committee to conduct robust oversight of the administration's 
     environmental initiatives by exercising oversight of agencies 
     directly within the Committee's jurisdictional authority, 
     including NOAA, NIST, and the EPA.
       Further, a recent article in the Washington Post outlining 
     a few of the Committee's oversight initiatives this year 
     acknowledged that the Committee has taken on an ``aggressive 
     role in oversight.'' The Committee's ability to compel 
     testimony has proven to be a central component of the 
     Committee's ability to advance its investigations, while also 
     enhancing Congress' role as an institution to serve as a 
     check on the administration's policies.
       Thank you for the opportunity to share the Committee's 
     experience utilizing deposition authority. If you have any 
     questions, please

[[Page H42]]

     do not hesitate to contact me or my staff about this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin the second session of the 114th Congress, 
there is a long list of important issues that we could be talking about 
today.
  We could be talking about ways to support job creation, to grow the 
economy, to improve gun safety, to strengthen national security, to 
pass an immigration reform bill, and many other important priorities.
  Instead, we are talking about H.R. 3762, the latest attempt by House 
Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood and to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act.
  As our economy continues to recover, we should be focused on 
expanding opportunity and helping more Americans get ahead. Instead, we 
are starting the new year by debating a bill that, if it ever became 
law, would put the health care of 22 million Americans in jeopardy and 
would further restrict women's access to vital healthcare services.
  This is yet another blatant political move by Republicans to appeal 
to and to appease their right-wing base. Republican leaders have said 
it themselves. Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn called this a 
``political exercise.'' He said, ``I think we all recognize the 
President isn't likely to sign this bill so it's not going to become a 
law.'' Then, why on earth are we wasting the American people's time 
with this terrible bill?
  This month we have heard that Speaker Ryan ``will push to turn the 
House into a platform for ambitious Republican policy ideas.'' The 62nd 
vote to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The 11th vote 
to attack women's health. Really? That is the platform for ambitious 
Republican policy ideas? I think the American people should sue 
Republicans for malpractice.
  When Speaker Ryan took the gavel last fall, there was so much talk 
about a new chapter and fresh ideas. Instead, we are starting 2016 with 
more of the stale and politically motivated bills we have become 
accustomed to in this Republican-controlled Congress. We are constantly 
being told by Republicans that they have better ideas and that they 
have a better approach to health care. Really? Where is it?
  I would remind my Republican friends that, in 2011, you passed a bill 
that actually tasked you to come up with an alternative to the 
Affordable Care Act. You came up with nothing. Just last year you 
passed another bill to come up with an alternative, and, once again, 
you came up with nothing.
  Now here we are again with a bill that repeals the Affordable Care 
Act and that tasks the Republicans to come up with an alternative. I am 
curious. Where is your alternative? Maybe it is in your notes. Is it 
hidden in some secret room in the Capitol? Maybe Donald Trump has it. 
Perhaps we should alert the Capitol Police. Better yet, maybe we could 
call the FBI to locate the Republican plan on health care.
  I remind my friends that you are in charge. You run this place. You 
can bring whatever you want to this House floor. Maybe you should bring 
a bloodhound to the House floor to try to find your alternative 
healthcare plan.
  Governing is something that my friends on the Republican side are not 
very good at. They are very good about saying no to everything, but 
they can't say yes to anything. The Republican plan on health care is, 
essentially, a sound bite. Their prescription is ``take two tax breaks 
and call me in the morning.''
  Not only have the Republicans done nothing to expand health care for 
the American people--and, again, they are in charge--but they have 
actually consistently tried to undermine health access for millions of 
Americans, to take health care away from people in this country.

                              {time}  1400

  If the Republicans had it their way and actually repealed the 
Affordable Care Act, millions of young people under the age of 26 would 
be thrown off their parents' health plans, being a woman would once 
again be a preexisting condition, and much more of the progress made by 
the ACA would be rolled back.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we often hear from Republicans, the 
Affordable Care Act is not killing the economy. I know facts get in the 
way of their arguments, but the fact is that America has seen a record 
69 straight months of job growth and all signs point to this historic 
growth continuing.
  In September 2012, when unemployment was at 8.1 percent, the 
Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, claimed that the 
unemployment rate would stay at 8 percent if President Obama were 
reelected President. Well, President Obama was reelected President, and 
Mitt Romney was wrong. What actually happened? The unemployment rate 
has steadily dropped each year and is now at a 7-year low of 5 percent, 
with employers adding about 210,000 jobs a month through last November 
as more Americans get back to work.
  One of the frequent Republican claims that we have heard is that 
businesses would shift to part-time workers to avoid the Affordable 
Care Act's requirement to provide healthcare coverage to full-time 
employees. A new study released this week shows that the ACA resulted 
in little change in the number of hours worked, including the first 6 
months of 2015 when the employer mandate first took effect for larger 
companies.
  As Politico noted, this study ``pokes a major hole in a beloved 
conservative talking point--that ObamaCare will force employers to cut 
employees' hours.'' The truth is that researchers found no major 
changes in the probability of people working fewer hours in 2013, 2014, 
or 2015.
  We have also heard Republicans' claim that the ACA's expansion of 
Medicaid would decrease employment among low-income workers, but 
another study released this week showed no major changes in the way 
low-income workers fit into the labor market during the first 15 months 
of Medicaid expansion under ACA. Contrary to conservative talking 
points, the new coverage didn't push low-income adults to switch jobs, 
move from full-time to part-time work, or rush to find new jobs.
  In fact, the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act has 
made a tremendous difference in increasing access to health care for 
America's most vulnerable families. Since October of 2013, more than 
12.3 million Americans have been able to get coverage thanks to the 
expansion of Medicaid. As a result of marketplace coverage and Medicaid 
expansion, hospital uncompensated care costs were reduced by an 
estimated $7.4 billion in 2014, resulting in huge savings for consumers 
across this country.
  That is the difference between us. Democrats believe health care is a 
right and my Republican friends believe it is a privilege.
  To make matters worse, the bill before us today would also defund 
Planned Parenthood, which would put millions of low-income women--and 
men, I would add--at risk of losing access to critical health services. 
The fact is that one in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood 
health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 
2.7 million patients each year.
  Additionally, Planned Parenthood clinics often serve as one of the 
few affordable care options available for many women and men. Cutting 
off access to the critical health services Planned Parenthood provides 
to some of our most vulnerable citizens is simply wrong. It is 
unconscionable. Sixty-three percent of voters, including 72 percent of 
independents, agree. This whole effort to defund Planned Parenthood 
fits the Republican pattern of targeting poor people, and, quite 
frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous.
  While our Nation's community health centers do incredible work, the 
Republican claim that community health centers by themselves could 
suddenly pick up all the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded is 
just not true, and my Republican friends

[[Page H43]]

know that. The idea that our community health centers could overnight 
suddenly step up and step in and cover millions of new patients is 
absurd. In fact, in 21 percent of the counties with a Planned 
Parenthood health center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net 
family planning provider.
  Finally, let me just also voice my strong objection to the provision 
in this rule which extends for another year the unrestricted authority 
for four House committees to conduct staff depositions at any time, on 
any subject, for any reason. Some committees have barely used this 
authority in the past year, and, when they have, it has often been 
abused with the threat of subpoena held over people's heads.
  The power to compel American citizens to provide testimony under oath 
should be rarely used and specifically authorized. Quite frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, I think the American people are tired of the partisan witch 
hunts that we have grown accustomed to under this Republican leadership 
in this House.
  We are starting the new year, not by working in a bipartisan way to 
do the people's business. Unfortunately, we are starting the new year 
debating the same old same old, bills that put politics ahead of 
people. Mr. Speaker, that is truly sad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe).
  Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is intrusive, it is expensive, 
and it is full of broken promises. Its biggest failure is the simple 
fact that it makes life more difficult for hardworking Americans. In my 
district, I have heard countless horror stories from parents, from 
seniors, from businessowners, all of which underscore that there is 
simply nothing affordable about the perversely named Affordable Care 
Act.
  There is the story of Morris from Rowlett, Texas, who is the sole 
breadwinner for his family. Now, the least expensive plan that Morris 
could find on healthcare.gov costs him $854 per month, plus a $12,700 
deductible. ObamaCare is preventing Morris from investing in things 
that really matter, like his son's college education.
  Take Heather from Pottsboro, who on a $700-per-month income simply 
can't afford the $287 per month that ObamaCare costs her. With health 
problems of her own, ObamaCare is preventing Heather from taking care 
of her 13-year-old daughter and a father with multiple sclerosis.
  Then there is Bryan, a small-business owner in my district who has 
seen a 50 percent increase in his monthly healthcare payments and 
deductible under ObamaCare. On top of that, Bryan can't grow his 
business beyond 50 employees because he can't afford to comply with the 
employer mandate or face its penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the stories that demonstrate the 
very real problems that ObamaCare is creating for hardworking Americans 
and why a better name for this law would be the Unaffordable Care Act. 
It is why I stand in support today of a reconciliation bill that will 
dismantle ObamaCare and defund Planned Parenthood for the next year.
  I promised my constituents that I would do more than just vote to 
repeal ObamaCare, that I would help send a bill to the Oval Office that 
actually will get rid of this terrible law. Today, I am keeping that 
promise.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and 
the reconciliation bill, just another budget measure being used as a 
vehicle to defund Planned Parenthood.
  This is the 11th Republican attack on women's health in this 
Congress, including four prior votes to defund Planned Parenthood. 
While House Republicans have already passed 10 antiwomen health 
measures and are now voting on their 11th, they have not passed a 
single measure that helps women get the reproductive health care that 
they need.
  So here we are--Happy New Year and with a new House Speaker--facing 
the same old story: Republican attacks on women's access to health care 
in the very first week. The news this morning reported Republicans are 
saying this bill will show the American people the difference between 
the political parties in this election year. For me, that is a shameful 
admission. The difference is clear: My Republican colleagues remain 
willing to play partisan politics at the expense of women's health 
care. The women of America are watching, and they don't like what they 
see.
  Last fall, House Republicans threatened to shut down the government 
if must-pass omnibus legislation did not defund Planned Parenthood. 
Now, that effort was stopped, but only by promises to include a 
defunding provision in this budget reconciliation bill and by the 
creation of a select panel to investigate Planned Parenthood.
  Never mind the fact that three House committees have already 
investigated Planned Parenthood following the release of selectively 
edited videos manufactured by an antiabortion group and that none of 
these committees found any evidence of wrongdoing.
  Apparently, uninterested in the facts, Republicans have continued to 
make inflammatory and baseless claims. They also push forward on their 
new select investigative panel, meaning even more taxpayer dollars will 
be spent targeting the Nation's reproductive healthcare providers 
instead of improving America's access to critical healthcare services.
  Having established this select panel, House Republicans have now 
refused to wait for the panel to hold even its first meeting before 
voting, once again, to defund Planned Parenthood. In this atmosphere, 
it is hard to imagine that any investigation will be fair and 
objective. Members have already declared the organization guilty as 
charged, and there is no reason to believe that they will be more 
openminded with regard to others who provide safe and legal 
reproductive healthcare services in this Nation.
  Facts matter. The truth matters. Despite our objection to the 
creation of the select panel, as its ranking member, I will work to 
ensure that the investigation is as fair and transparent and as 
objective as possible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The relentless attacks on Planned Parenthood and 
other healthcare providers must stop and they will stop. Planned 
Parenthood serves almost 3 million American women, and there is no 
evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood to possibly justify the 
defunding of the Nation's leading provider of reproductive health care 
whose work helps to avoid thousands and thousands of abortions because 
they provide planned parenthood.
  We should stop this latest effort to defund Planned Parenthood--and 
we will because this bill is going nowhere--and instead take 
affirmative steps to improve women's access to health care in this 
great Nation. Enough is enough.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairwoman of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying motion to concur 
with the Senate amendment to H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' 
Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, mark a significant achievement 
for Americans who value life and economic liberty.
  After years of work and dozens of votes in the face of acerbic 
rhetoric hurled at us from across the aisle, this House will send to 
the President's desk legislation to remove the heavy hand of the 
Federal Government from Americans' health care and end the stream of 
taxpayer dollars that flows to an organization that brutally kills 
precious unborn lives.
  When the so-called Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, 
Republicans warned that the law would cause significant increases in 
the cost of health care and health insurance, reduce full-time jobs and 
work-hours available, and strain the safety net until it breaks.
  The American people were sold a bill of goods that has proven to be 
only a list of empty promises. Most of us recall clearly these 
assurances: that we could keep our insurance plans, that we could keep 
our doctors, and that our out-of-pocket costs would go down.
  Mr. Speaker, the letters, emails, and telephone calls from my 
constituents

[[Page H44]]

tell me clearly that the Affordable Care Act has proven to be anything 
but affordable for North Carolinians, and the law has limited access to 
care and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time to undo this 
harmful law.
  Also included in the Senate amendment is a provision first passed by 
this House to stop the flow of Federal mandatory funds to Planned 
Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood does not receive direct Federal 
funding for abortions, these actions 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. Fortunately, 
there are many more options for women's health care than the 
discredited abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
  While Planned Parenthood has only approximately 665 clinics, 
federally qualified health centers, FQHCs, and rural health centers, 
RHCs, have more than 13,000 publicly supported locations providing 
alternatives for women's health care. This means there are 20 federally 
funded comprehensive care clinics for every one Planned Parenthood. 
This bill does not change the availability of funds for women's health. 
It simply establishes a safeguard so that the Nation's largest abortion 
chain is not the one providing such services.
  When Federal taxpayers have legitimate concerns that their hard-
earned dollars are flowing to organizations that sanction the 
dismemberment of unborn children and that our system of law has 
loopholes allowing these atrocities to continue, we, as their elected 
representatives, are responsible for ensuring these concerns are heard 
and responded to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our freedom rests on the cornerstone right we 
all have to life, and I fear we have lost sight of that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying motion to 
protect innocent lives and restore our liberty.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and join in strong 
opposition to this rule that will bring forward dangerous legislation 
that harms women, seniors, and families across America.
  In our first week back in this session, it is appalling that the 
Republicans believe defunding Planned Parenthood, rolling back women's 
access to health screenings, or raising prescription drug prices for 
seniors is a top priority.
  This latest attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal the ACA 
is nothing short of an attack on women and low-income Americans. 
Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients are low-income and 
often have nowhere else to go. Eliminating funding will have 
devastating consequences on the health of young women and men, Latinas, 
and LGBT Americans.
  This isn't just dangerous public policy. It is completely out of 
touch with the vast majority of Americans.
  When I meet with my constituents across Phoenix, I hear families 
worried about affording college, students struggling to pay their 
tuition and the amount of debt they have, and hardworking Americans who 
can't afford the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. But I also 
hear relief: relief that came from the ACA, relief from young women who 
no longer have to pay for copays for birth control when they go to the 
pharmacy, relief that their annual exams no longer come with cost 
sharing, relief from seniors whose prescription drug costs are lower 
because we got rid of the Medicare doughnut hole, relief from parents 
that their child with chronic disease can't be denied insurance 
coverage--all thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
  Women and all Americans deserve better than playing the same politics 
over their bodies and their health care. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this dangerous rule and oppose the reconciliation package on behalf of 
millions of families who can't afford to lose care once again.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a strong member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Committee on Rules colleague for 
yielding, and I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  This is a monumental vote. For the first time since Republicans took 
control of this House in 2011, we are in a position to send a bill to 
the President's desk that would dismantle ObamaCare and eliminate 
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, who we know sold body parts 
from aborted babies. This piece of legislation is about listening to 
the American people and working to advance their concerns right here in 
the people's House.
  ObamaCare is fundamentally broken. It is not making health care more 
affordable. In fact, it is doing just the opposite. As The New York 
Times pointed out just the other day, many Americans find it cheaper to 
pay the tax penalty and remain uninsured instead of signing up for a 
healthcare plan they simply cannot afford. That is exactly the opposite 
of how this law was supposed to work.
  My colleagues on the other side say that Republicans want to take 
away people's health care. Let me tell you what took away people's 
health care: this law did.
  I hear stories every time I go to the grocery store or hold a 
townhall meeting from people who had a healthcare plan that they liked, 
a plan they could afford, a plan that worked for them. Now, the 
President said over and over again, ``If you like your healthcare plan, 
you can keep it.'' That was not true.
  The people of the United States suffer today because they lost their 
healthcare plans or they simply can't afford the cost and the new 
healthcare plan that has been forced on them. If you want to talk about 
taking away people's health care from someone, that is what this law 
did. That is what the President of the United States did and what he 
continues to do with this law.
  We need to move past this government-mandated healthcare plan and 
instead empower the American people and their doctors. The people don't 
want the Federal Government to tell them what type of health insurance 
they need or what doctors they should see. That is simply not the role 
of the Federal Government. We should get rid of this awful law and, 
instead, move forward with healthcare reform that puts the interests of 
the patient first, not the interests of the Federal Government.
  Let's pass this bill and send it to the President's desk, and then he 
gets to make a choice. He can stand with the American people or he can 
stand against the American people. If he chooses to veto this bill, 
then the American people will have seen a clear choice between two 
different Americas: an America where the government knows best or an 
America where the people, the hardworking people who have made our 
country great, where the people are empowered.
  Let's make the President decide. Let's hold him accountable. Let's do 
the work of our constituents, and let's pass this bill on behalf of 
every American who lost their healthcare plan or saw their healthcare 
costs increase. Let's do this for them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama says this is a 
monumental vote. Let me get this straight. A bill that is going to the 
White House that will get the fastest veto that we have ever seen ever 
happen in this country is somehow a monumental vote? I would suggest to 
my Republican colleagues, if they think this is a monumental vote, they 
have low standards.
  This is a political sound bite. This is a waste of taxpayer money. 
This is just a waste of everybody's time. We ought to be talking about 
how to strengthen this economy, about how to get more people health 
care, not these political sound bites that really waste precious 
resources here in the Congress and, by the way, cost taxpayers money. 
All this wasted debate here, all this wasted time is costing taxpayers 
money.

[[Page H45]]

  Let's find ways to make the Affordable Care Act even better. Let's 
find ways to make sure that 100 percent of the people in this country 
have the health care that they need, not be debating a sound bite, by 
the way, that, if it ever passed, would throw 22 million people off of 
health care. How can you go back to your districts and be proud of 
that?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts for the time.
  Here we go again. Congress reconvenes and the majority is starting 
out the new year doing the same old thing. We come back from the 
holidays, a time for family, for reflection, and we begin this new year 
with a vote to cripple the health care of our families. The vote today 
would defund Planned Parenthood, and it would repeal essential pieces 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I really don't know how else to put this except to say 
that the Affordable Care Act works. It actually works for the people 
that I represent, for Californians, and for Americans, especially those 
who never had health care before.
  Not only has this law been affirmed constitutionally by our Supreme 
Court, it has survived countless votes to dismantle it in this Chamber 
and the other. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the folks in my 
district have seen massive improvement in their community. From 2012 to 
2014, more than 60,000 people at home in my area now have health 
insurance, and they never had it before.

  This is just about partisan politics today. You are right, Mr. 
McGovern, it is just about partisan politics. Instead of focusing on 
the issues that are important to our families--immigration reform, 
addressing climate change, creating jobs--no, here we go back again.
  Mr. Speaker, let's cut the partisan politics. Let's do what families 
need. Let's vote against this.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to a new Member from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule and the underlying bill, and I commend the months of hard work 
from my colleagues to put together this historic piece of legislation. 
I likewise thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle acts as though words are 
meaningless. The truth is the President promised the American people 
that, if they liked their insurance, they could keep it. He promised. 
He promised also that this would be more affordable health care.
  The reality, Mr. Speaker, is none of those promises were true. In 
fact, now we have millions of Americans who have lost their insurance 
because of this bill. We have millions of Americans now who are in a 
situation having to decide between drastically increasing health 
insurance costs that they have to pay or facing penalties and 
consequences for not participating.
  Mr. Speaker, the President also promised that this healthcare law, 
ObamaCare, would boost the economy. In fact, it has discouraged 
businesses from hiring more than 50 people and from having more than 30 
hours a week for their workers to work.
  The President also told the American people that ObamaCare would not 
increase the deficit. As has already been mentioned here today, that is 
absolutely wrong. The CBO has clearly identified how the cost is going 
to increase tremendously.
  This reconciliation package remedies the harm and the devastation of 
the broken promises of this President. It repeals the very foundation 
of ObamaCare and places a 1-year moratorium on funding Planned 
Parenthood.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is Alice in Wonderland. First the 
verdict, then the trial. The Republicans have declared the verdict 
against Planned Parenthood before ever holding the trial. With no shred 
of evidence aside from a series of blatantly manipulated videos, 
without a single House committee finding any wrongdoing, without the 
select committee ostensibly set up to look at Planned Parenthood 
holding a single meeting, they have decided in this bill to cut off all 
Federal funding, including Medicaid reimbursement, for one 
organization.
  The legislation we are voting on today targets one organization and 
cuts it off from all Federal funding, including reimbursement for 
Medicaid services provided, for no justifiable legislative reason 
beyond punishment for offering a constitutionally protected medical 
procedure.
  This smacks of a clearly unconstitutional bill of attainder. The 
prohibition on bills of attainder exists to prevent just this kind of 
targeted attack on a single group. You cannot use legislation to punish 
a single organization without any evidence or fair legislative process 
simply because you don't like it.
  While the legislation never mentions the words ``Planned 
Parenthood,'' we have heard and will hear here today Planned 
Parenthood's name over and over again from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle during this debate. No one can say this bill is not 
aimed directly at one organization.
  Of course, if the Republicans in Congress had any evidence that 
Planned Parenthood broke the law, they would have taken it to the 
Attorney General or the FBI, but they didn't. If they had any faith in 
the extremists who made these accusations against Planned Parenthood, 
they would have brought them before Congress to testify, but they 
didn't. The truth is this attack on Planned Parenthood is knowingly 
based on a whole series of lies.
  The longer the Republicans keep up this pretense in order to stoke 
the flames with their inflammatory rhetoric, the longer they put 
patients and providers at risk of unstable people committing murder, as 
we have seen at abortion clinics. Bulletproof glass and safe rooms 
should not be necessary for women to access basic health care like 
cancer screenings or contraception, but if this farcical attack on 
Planned Parenthood doesn't stop, that would be the norm for women 
around the country. You want a breast exam, you want contraception, you 
put your life at risk.
  Do not be fooled by claims that this funding will go to other 
healthcare providers and Planned Parenthood's patients will follow it. 
It is simply not true. More than half of Planned Parenthood's patients 
rely on Medicaid. Most States do not have enough providers, 
particularly specialists like OB/GYNs, taking Medicaid patients to 
absorb Planned Parenthood's patients.
  By voting to defund Planned Parenthood today, you are leaving 2.7 
million women, men, and families with no access to health care. Enough 
is enough. It is time for my Republican colleagues to accept what they 
know is true. Planned Parenthood has done nothing more than provide 
compassionate, comprehensive care for millions of Americans in a safe, 
legal manner.
  Stop the rhetoric. Stop the lies. Don't deprive people of abortion 
services, of healthcare services, of contraception services, of breast 
exams. Vote ``no'' on this rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, 
and don't violate the Constitution with a bill of attainder.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and final passage of H.R. 3762.
  Since I was first sworn in to the House, my top priority has been to 
repeal this disastrous healthcare law we call ObamaCare. Finally, today 
we have an opportunity to send to the President's desk legislation that 
repeals ObamaCare.
  Today we are going to end the individual mandate, stop the employer 
mandate, and repeal dozens of taxes and provisions that prevent people 
from actually getting affordable health coverage. I have always said we 
should incentivize health savings accounts, not tax them, and this bill 
repeals the tax on HSAs.
  It is obvious that ObamaCare has done nothing to reduce healthcare 
costs. I hear from many of the local business owners and constituents 
in my district every day about their struggle to comply with the law, 
let

[[Page H46]]

alone provide health coverage for their employees and their families.
  Manufacturers, construction companies, and retail store owners are 
facing dramatic increases to their administrative and healthcare costs. 
This leaves them in the dangerous position of ObamaCare driving them 
out of business by making those decisions.
  Since signing it into law, the President has delayed or repealed 
parts of ObamaCare for political reasons. This was a bad law to begin 
with because it is fundamentally unworkable and unaffordable. It is 
time to repeal it once and for all.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the passage of 
this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that this debate is astonishing to me. What is so 
controversial on the Republican side is that millions and millions more 
Americans have health care. I heard someone over there say that fewer 
people have health care. They can't produce any validators to support 
that statement. CBO and a whole bunch of other validators have actually 
said more people have health care.
  If they get their way, 22 million people will lose their health care. 
That is what this is about. This is about whether or not people in this 
country deserve health care or whether or not they don't, whether or 
not you think health care is a right or whether, as my Republican 
friends say, it is a privilege. We think it is a right.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his leadership, and I thank him for yielding.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, here we go again and again and again. Once more, 
politicians are invading the bedrooms of the American women.
  I stand with Planned Parenthood. We will not go back.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare 
Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. This bill guts ObamaCare, 
eliminating many of the penalties and programs that have been 
implemented over the last several years by this administration.
  Americans have been saddled with the burden of a healthcare insurance 
system that restricts what doctor they can see, what services they can 
receive, and has even limited them to who they can have as their 
pharmacist.
  If the President signs this bill into law, we can return the power of 
our healthcare system back to the American people. Americans should be 
in charge of their healthcare system, not Washington, D.C.
  With this bill, Congress will eliminate the individual mandate, the 
employer mandate, and repeal all future appropriated funds to the 
Prevention and Public Health Fund that has supported the failing 
ObamaCare law for the last several years.
  It repeals the medical device tax, the excise tax on high-cost health 
insurance plans, and the $2,500 limit on flexible spending accounts. It 
also repeals ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion eligibility pathway, which 
has left many States suffering with budget problems, and it restricts 
Federal funding to Planned Parenthood and its affiliated clinics for a 
period of 1 year, with appropriate funds being redirected to Community 
Health Centers to better serve women and their health.
  This bill returns to the American people a system that is driven by 
the market, not by artificial formulas and percentages created by 
Washington bureaucrats.
  As a pharmacist and former owner of three independent pharmacies, I 
can assure you the only way to lower costs and create an opportunity 
for everyone to participate is by allowing the free market to work as 
it was meant to.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill so that we 
can eliminate this burdensome healthcare plan and bring greater 
opportunities for Americans to receive affordable health care.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have 
unveiled their new ideas for moving America forward, which include 
trying to repeal or undermine for the 62nd time the Affordable Care Act 
and for the 11th time attacking women's health care, both of which are 
guaranteed to be vetoed by President Obama.
  So one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
again, expecting a different result. There will be no different result 
today.
  The Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land, and Planned 
Parenthood will not be defunded. The Republicans know this. Because if 
the Affordable Care Act were actually to be repealed, over 22 million 
Americans would lose their health coverage, including 3.5 million 
Californians, and the Republicans have no plan for how they will fix 
this immediate healthcare crisis. In addition, millions more will lose 
healthcare access if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded.
  If you want to look at hyperpartisan bills that waste time, squander 
taxpayer resources, and are going nowhere, look at the GOP agenda. If 
you want ideas that will move America forward, such as investing in 
education, reducing carbon pollution, and creating jobs, look at the 
Democratic agenda. At least we are not insane.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
  For months now, Americans have--in horror--watched gruesome 
undercover videos detailing Planned Parenthood's barbaric practice of 
harvesting little baby body parts for profit. In one heartbreaking 
story, a whistleblower described how Planned Parenthood carved up the 
face of a baby boy whose heart was still beating and then harvested his 
intact brain.
  As a father of four beautiful children by adoption, I listened to 
this gut-wrenching recollection only to think about millions of 
destroyed lives that won't be given the chance at life my kids 
received.

  It is time to stop funneling millions of taxpayer funds to this 
abortion giant that prides itself in snuffing out the lives of innocent 
babies and then profiting off their little victims.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3762.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just respond to the gentleman that the overwhelming majority 
of the American people actually support Planned Parenthood. That is in 
spite of all the attacks and all the accusations that have no basis and 
that have been hurled at them by my Republican friends.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that Planned Parenthood provides 
a number of services to patients, such as family planning counseling 
and contraception. They provide pregnancy tests and Pap tests. They 
provide lifesaving breast exams.
  This is an organization that provides for the health and well-being 
of millions of people in this country, mostly poor women. Maybe that 
makes it easier for my friends on the other side to attack this program 
and this organization--because they primarily provide help to poor 
women--but that is what Planned Parenthood is about.
  And so this is an important organization, a good organization. That 
is why a majority of Americans support it. My friends are on the wrong 
side of public opinion on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, taxpayer money should not be used for abortions, period. 
Taxpayer money should not be used to support abortion providers, 
period.
  As Americans, we are proud to support life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness. Yet, in the last fiscal year, $554 million of taxpayer 
money went to support Planned Parenthood. In the same year, it was 
responsible for the death of 323,999 innocent babies, even dismembering 
and selling baby parts. These lost children are a deep scar on our 
Nation.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have countered that 
Planned Parenthood does more than provide

[[Page H47]]

abortions. Well, let's take a look at the facts. According to Planned 
Parenthood's own 2014-2015 annual report, cancer screenings are down 27 
percent, family planning and contraceptive services are down 18 
percent, and STD prevention and treatments are down 6 percent. Planned 
Parenthood's services declined in the same year that they received a 
nearly 5 percent increase in Federal funding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are accountable for American taxpayer dollars. H.R. 
3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, 
defunds Planned Parenthood and shifts those same taxpayer dollars to 
the much larger network of community health clinics that do not provide 
abortions. This legislation will increase access to healthcare services 
for women while upholding and strengthening the value of life.
  H.R. 3762 also defunds the unmitigated disaster known as ObamaCare. 
President Obama said you can keep your health plan. Well, we found out 
millions can't. President Obama called this affordable. Well, it's not. 
Premiums have gone up.
  Americans deserve the freedom to choose the health plan that is right 
for them, not the one selected by President Obama.
  Please join me in supporting H.R. 3762 to protect taxpayer dollars 
from being spent on abortions while increasing access to healthcare 
services for women, as we also defund ObamaCare and its legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just have to correct the record. The gentleman said that taxpayer 
money should not be spent on abortions. It can't be. That is the law. I 
don't know what he is talking about.
  I also should point out to the gentleman that more than 90 percent of 
what Planned Parenthood does is preventative care.
  So I get it. It is the political rhetoric that people get carried 
away with. But let's at least try to stick to facts at least a little 
bit. Let's also understand--so my colleague has no confusion here--that 
the law here is that no taxpayer money can be spent for abortions. So 
let's clear that up.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, to support the rule, 
but I also rise in strong support of the Restoring Americans' 
Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, a crucial piece of legislation 
with bicameral support.
  This bill continues our efforts to protect patients, families, 
taxpayers, and communities across the Nation. It will lift the burdens 
of the President's healthcare law and give back the power over 
healthcare decisions to individual patients and families.
  This bill gives us the opportunity to take crucial steps toward a 
more patient-centered healthcare system. It gives us the opportunity to 
reduce our Nation's deficit by repealing the majority of the burdensome 
healthcare taxes and ending harsh penalties.
  This legislation also gives us the opportunity to save lives. In 
light of Planned Parenthood's unethical and potentially illegal 
activity, I firmly believe our taxpayers should not be forced to pay 
for such organizations. We must protect the rights of taxpayers and, 
more importantly, the rights of the unborn.

                              {time}  1445

  As I have said before, I remain dedicated to giving a voice to our 
most fragile Americans who cannot speak for themselves. I am proud this 
legislation helps us protect those who need protection most.
  I urge my colleagues to support this good bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Other than a verbal 
assault against Planned Parenthood and a verbal assault against the 
Affordable Care Act, this bill will do nothing. It is going to be 
vetoed really quickly. Maybe it is red meat for the political base, but 
if that satisfies your political base, great. I would say they are a 
cheap date if this is what it takes to satisfy them.
  But we ought to be dealing with some serious issues here, and I am 
going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, 
I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan 
legislation that would close a glaring loophole in our gun laws 
allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms.
  The bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on 
the FBI's terrorist watch list. I don't know why that is so 
controversial, but some of my friends find that to be a controversial 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure for many 
different reasons, but let me just touch on three.
  One, Gordon Sullivan was former Chief of Staff of the United States 
Army, and he once observed that hope was not a method.
  Irregardless of the good intentions behind the Affordable Care Act, I 
think that, from an actuarial standpoint, if you really look at it, you 
would have to say that hope was, indeed, part of the method.
  I say that because if you look at the number of young people that 
were anticipated to sign up, already 7.5 million folks have said: No, I 
am not signing up, I would rather take the penalty than sign up. And 
what that creates is a big liability for the taxpayer.
  Two, I would make the point that there have been real implications 
for the small-business person. We have a company back home in 
Charleston by the name of East Bay Deli. The owner came to me just a 
number of weeks ago and said: Look, I was going to open up a couple of 
more shops but, given the cost that I have seen with the Affordable 
Care Act for my small business, I am not going to do that. Ninety 
employees that won't have jobs as a consequence.
  Finally, our healthcare system has been predicated on a doctor-
patient relationship. That Hippocratic Oath, that direct tie between 
doctor and patient, is part and parcel to the whole system. Yet the 
Affordable Care Act, again, in the whole, begins to undermine that.
  So for many different reasons, those three among them, I rise in 
support of this measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am almost embarrassed to get up here and 
discuss this legislation and believe that its sponsors really think 
that it is going to become law. That is what the reputation of the 
Congress is supposed to be all about.
  But even when it is such an important decision, we like to talk about 
things that we are doing as a matter of life and death, but we don't 
really mean it. It is just a political expression.
  But when you are talking about health care and realize that this is 
the only industrialized country left that has not seen fit to believe 
that health care is a matter of right, it goes beyond politics when we 
pass a bill so that people throughout the United States will be able to 
enjoy health care, that we don't find one Member of the opposition 
party joining in that legislation.
  It is beyond belief that people can complain that not enough young 
people are signing up, or that employers are skeptical, or that there 
are people who lack confidence in this bill, when the majority party in 
this Congress has condemned this bill with such utter contempt that, 
for over 50 times, they would come and attempt to repeal it, and then 
expect that everybody should have confidence in it.
  Why are we doing this? How can any party dislike, hate, or disagree 
with the President so much that they would spend millions of dollars of 
the taxpayers' money to attack a national healthcare-providing bill and 
not have the least idea as to whether or not,

[[Page H48]]

first of all, they know it is not going to become law, but not enough 
common sense and decency to provide an alternative.
  We all know that 7 years ago, when President Obama was first elected, 
that the leaders of the Republican Party said that their first job 
would be to get rid of President Obama.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I close by saying, everybody here knows this will never become law. 
It is a political statement. As a politician, there is nothing wrong 
with political statements. But to have one that is so wrapped up with 
hypocrisy and hatred is very awkward for us to continue in this body 
and believe that anything we attempt to do to send to the President 
would have anyone believing that we are doing it because it is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Restoring 
Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.
  This important legislation would repeal the employer and individual 
mandates, the ObamaCare slush fund, and the numerous harmful taxes on 
everything from medical devices to health insurers to the insurance 
plans themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is an unpopular, failed law. Polls have shown 
it, elections have demonstrated it, and rising premiums have proven it.
  I wasn't in this body when this law passed. I was watching in horror 
with the rest of the American people as the legislative process was 
railroaded to push it through.
  But let's consider the contrast today to what we have before us, a 
bill that both the House and the Senate came together to guide through 
the normal legislative process.
  Let's start 2016 the right way and make President Obama own this law 
in a way that he has not had to do yet. Let's continue to work here in 
Congress toward a commonsense plan to replace this damaging law.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, a picture is always worth a thousand 
words, and this is a picture of words. It is very clear that the 
Affordable Care Act has been a lifesaver for many Americans. And this 
budget reconciliation act is obviously misdirected, wrong directed, and 
the 62nd time this body has tried to gut ObamaCare.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for vetoing it, no matter whether it came 
from the Senate or the House.
  We worked, without ceasing, to get a bill that would cover millions 
of Americans. It was a deliberative process, and everyone had a right 
to vote.
  The Republicans refused to vote for good health care, and here we 
are, 13 million Americans benefitted from $1.1 billion in rebates for 
health insurance; 105 million Americans, including 71 million Americans 
in private plans and 34 million in Medicare.
  Last August, millions of women began receiving free coverage for 
comprehensive women's care; 17 million children with preexisting 
conditions have insurance; 6.6 million young people have insurance; 6.3 
million seniors.
  And, of course, they want to attack Planned Parenthood, which 
provides vulnerable women with health care.
  I don't know what they view the budget reconciliation act, but I call 
it the Anti-New Year's Celebration. Now that we have a new year, we 
have this horrible bill. Vote against it, and vote for a thousand words 
right here.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 3762, the 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.
  I oppose the rule for H.R. 2762 for three reasons: 1. The rule only 
allows one hour of debate equally divided between the supporters and 
opponents of the rule; 2. This is not an open rule that would allow for 
amendments that could have been offered improve the bill; and 3. The 
President has communicated to the House that he will veto this bill if 
it is not amended.
  The House needs more time to debate this bill because it could mean a 
return to the days when nearly 20% of Americans had seriously deficient 
healthcare coverage or none at all.
  Unfortunately this rule for the underlying bill is the latest GOP 
attempt to end the Affordable Care Act guarantee of access to health 
insurance for millions of Americans and not an attempt to improve the 
lives of working men and women or their families.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3762, 
would result in 22 million Americans losing their health coverage after 
2017.
  The impact of the bill should it become law is significant and should 
have more than an hour of debate prior to a vote.
  The worse thing about this bill is that the authors are well aware of 
the public reaction should it become law, and this is why it would not 
go into effect during 2016, but 2017 after the general election and 
would remove health coverage for those who are the most vulnerable such 
as those who have coverage under the Medicaid expansion.
  I also object that this is a closed rule that does not allow 
amendments that could provide support for bipartisan efforts to improve 
the bill.
  Instead of attempting to repeal and undermine this law, we should use 
our time to work together to make improvements where necessary such as 
ending the so called ``Cadillac Tax'' and making sure that health 
insurance is focused on providing the care prescribed by doctors and 
not health insurance plans.
  Finally, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because the 
Administration has made it clear that this bill will be vetoed if 
presented for signature by the President.
  The House has important work it should be doing such as voting on 
legislation to create new infrastructure to support the 21st century 
need for universal high-speed broadband access and; closing the gap in 
STEM employment opportunities and skills that has over 1 million 
positions that are going unfilled; and strengthening gun safety by 
increasing the number of agents at the ATF to ensure that all gun 
dealers are following the law; and promoting greater access to mental 
health services.
  Instead we continue to waste time on fighting the Affordable Care Law 
in ways that would hurt Americans who need affordable, assessable and 
available healthcare we could be engaged in productive legislative 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues reject this bad rule and the 
flawed underlying legislation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from 
Massachusetts if he has any further speakers remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Right now, just me.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am going to ask the good doctor to close us today. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great affection for my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, but I don't understand their obsession with trying to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act or their obsession with trying to defund 
Planned Parenthood. I mean, if they get their way on the Affordable 
Care Act, they would throw 22 million people out of their health 
insurance plans; 22 million people would lose their coverage.
  Young people who are 26 years old and under would lose their 
healthcare benefits. Right now they can stay on their family's 
healthcare plans up to 26. They would lose that.
  It used to be that if you are a woman it would be considered a 
preexisting condition and your insurance rates would be higher. The 
Affordable Care Act prevents that.
  The doughnut hole in the prescription drug plan, the cost to senior 
citizens, is closing. Ultimately, we will eliminate that doughnut hole 
because of the Affordable Care Act. That is all good.
  Medicare's solvency has been expanded because of this. Millions more 
people have health insurance as a result. That is a good thing. But 
they want to take it away.
  On Planned Parenthood, I mean, most of what they do is provide 
preventative care to women. They want to take that away. It is cruel. 
It is a cruel thing to do.
  I can't believe that there isn't bipartisan consensus in this place 
that health care is something that people need and we ought to make 
sure they have access to it.
  My friends have been in charge of this Congress for a long time. They 
can't even offer an alternative. They can tell us what they are 
against, but they can't tell us what they are for. They have done 
nothing to help expand the ability of people to get health insurance in 
this country. All they do is

[[Page H49]]

come to the floor and talk about repealing bills that will make it more 
difficult for people.
  I can't understand how you get up every morning and go to work and 
that is your mission, to make it more difficult for people in this 
country, to throw 22 million people off the health insurance rolls, to 
make it more difficult for vulnerable women to get preventative care at 
Planned Parenthood.
  That is the mission. That is how we are beginning this new year. And 
it really is sad, and it is really disheartening, I think, for a lot of 
us who came here to try to make a difference in people's lives, to try 
to help improve the quality of life for people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible, terrible bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a good doctor who doesn't just talk 
about health care, but who does get up every morning to provide that 
health care to Americans.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, since this bill passed the House in March of 2010, 
probably half of the Congress has changed. So for the benefit of people 
who were not here in March of 2010, who did not see this debate in its 
full-throated entirety in 2010, I want to just revisit a couple of the 
salient pieces that led up to the passage of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
  People may ask themselves, why doesn't this law enjoy more 
popularity? In fact, the night it was passed, as reported on CNN, the 
American people were opposed to the passage of this law by about 52 
percent. That number is essentially unchanged almost 6 years later.
  And what was the promise of the Affordable Care Act? Well, let me 
remind people. And don't take my word for it. This is in the 
inestimable words of Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor from MIT 
who published a graphic novel about the Affordable Care Act.

       Yay. Hooray. Everyone will be able to afford insurance. You 
     won't have to worry about going broke if you get sick. We 
     will start to bring the cost of health care under control, 
     and we will do this all while reducing the Federal deficit.

  Why wasn't it more popular when it was passed?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are, about 2 weeks after Christmas Eve, 
and it was Christmas Eve of 2009 when this bill passed the Senate.
  And I would remind people in this body, it was not a House bill that 
passed the Senate. Well, I take that back. It was a House bill. It was 
H.R. 3590. That was a bill dealing with veterans' housing that had 
passed this House July of 2009 and had nothing to do with health care.
  But because this bill, this law, was a massive piece of tax policy, 
it had to originate in the House. Except it didn't, but the bill number 
originated in the House.
  So the bill that was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009, 
with a big snowstorm bearing down on Washington, D.C., every Senator 
wanting to get out of town and get home to their district, the bill 
that was passed read as follows: ``Strike all after the enacting clause 
and insert--''
  That means it took out all the housing language and put in all the 
healthcare language and, more importantly, all of the tax policy.

                              {time}  1500

  That bill passed the Senate with 60 votes. Of course at that time, 
Democrats held a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and it allegedly was 
to come back to a conference committee with the House except that the 
Senate lost a Democratic Senator in that timeframe. Harry Reid told the 
then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, that he no longer had 60 votes 
and there was simply nothing more he could do. It was up to the Speaker 
of the House to pass the Senate bill with no changes because he could 
not bring it back before the Senate because he no longer had 60 votes.
  So the next 3 months, literally, were consumed with arm-twisting, 
kneecapping, and trying to convince people to vote for something that 
was against their fundamental best interest. So is it a surprise that 
it did not enjoy popular support on the day it was passed and it has 
not achieved popular support even with all the giveaways and even with 
all the Federal money pumped into it since that time?
  The reason, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. At the heart of this--at the 
heart of this--is a very coercive--really, it is unique in Federal 
policy. The Federal Government tells you what you have to do. You have 
to buy a healthcare policy. Then they seek to regulate it under the 
Commerce Clause.
  It was the most convoluted logic anyone had ever seen. But it was 
coercive, and that coerciveness led to the corrosiveness that has 
underlain the Affordable Care Act ever since.
  No wonder people look at this. It was conceived--it was conceived--in 
a falsehood and then delivered to the American people under a false 
promise. Indeed, it has harmed--as we have heard over and over again 
from people that it has harmed--individuals in individual districts 
across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the rule and in support of 
the reconciliation bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 579 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. 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. 1076.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H50]]

     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. WOODALL. 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 on House 
Resolution 579 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 579, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 580; and adoption of House Resolution 580, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 175, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 2]

                               YEAS--239

     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
     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
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     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)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--175

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     McDermott
     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
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Byrne
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Hinojosa
     Huffman
     Issa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Payne
     Rigell
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Takai
     Titus
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1530

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. FARR and BEYER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. SESSIONS was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


 Announcement by Committee on Rules Regarding Amendments to H.R. 1644, 
 Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining 
                                  Act

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee issued a 
Dear Colleague outlining the amendment process for H.R. 1644, the 
STREAM Act. An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, January 11, 
2016, at 10 a.m. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill 
as reported by the Committee on Natural Resources and as posted on the 
Rules Committee's Web site. Please feel free to contact either me or 
the Rules Committee's staff with any questions a Member or staff may 
have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 177, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     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

[[Page H51]]


     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
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     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)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--177

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     McDermott
     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
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brat
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Payne
     Rigell
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Takai
     Titus
     Webster (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1540

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________