[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.''
____________________