Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5932-H5936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 954, CO-OP CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
OF 2016

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 893

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 954) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt from the
individual mandate certain individuals who had coverage under
a terminated qualified health plan funded through the
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 893 provides for
consideration of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among the majority
and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. As is standard with
all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee on Rules made
no further amendments in order; however, the rule affords the minority
the customary motion to recommit.
Under the rule, we will be considering a bill to prevent a tax
increase imposed on the American people by the Affordable Care Act.
This will affect many Americans through no fault of their own and due
to circumstances beyond their control. The bill advanced through
regular order and was reported favorably out of the Committee on Ways
and Means on a voice vote earlier this month.
The Affordable Care Act established a program to provide taxpayer-
funded loans for Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program, better
known as the CO-OP program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services funded 24 CO-OPs in 23 States. Of those 24 CO-OPs, 1 failed
before it ever enrolled a single individual, and just 6 remain open
today. The 17 failed CO-OPs received over $1.8 billion in taxpayer
funds and, to date, none of those CO-OPs has paid back any of those
loans.
In addition to wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, the CO-OPs have
created instability and hardship for hundreds of thousands of
individuals who relied on CO-OPs for insurance coverage. Under the
Affordable Care Act, individuals must be covered by a health plan that
provides minimum essential coverage or pay a tax for failure to
maintain coverage. Thus, victims of failed CO-OPs were penalized,
despite their efforts to be in compliance with the law.
The magnitude of this problem for affected individuals is
significant. They are left without coverage for health care. They face
increased financial burdens and tax penalties. H.R. 954, the CO-OP
Consumer Protection Act of 2016, would provide targeted relief by
creating an exemption from the individual health insurance mandate for
individuals who have coverage under a CO-OP that fails.
H.R. 954 would be effective retroactively, starting January 1, 2014,
and would also protect consumers of the remaining six CO-OPS going
forward. While the administration and some of my counterparts have
noted that consumers affected by a close CO-OP could have purchased new
plans during a special enrollment period, this comes up short. Those
victims of failed CO-OPs had to start anew in paying deductibles for a
new plan well into the coverage year, and continuity of care could be
significantly disrupted, based on changes to provider networks.
H.R. 954 does not make these individuals whole, but it is the right
thing to do. Across America, individuals do not even have the basic
assurance that their insurance carrier will not simply vanish in the
night. We should all be able to agree that these individuals should not
also then face penalties under the individual mandate.
H.R. 954 advanced through regular order and was favorably reported
out of the Committee on Ways and Means. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we are again, Mr. Speaker, discussing a bill that, whatever its
merits and noble intentions are, of course, of trying to hold harmless
the victims of organizations that go out of business, will meet a veto.
The Statement of Administration Policy says, if the President were
presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the bill. That is the strongest
kind of veto message that we get. Sometimes they say his advisers say
he might or he is going to consider it. It says he would veto it.
So here we are again, in the precious little time that this body has
before it sends everybody back to their district, when we could be
addressing Zika, when we could be addressing Flint, when we could be
addressing immigration reform, when we could pass a balanced budget
amendment, or any of those things that I hear from my constituents
every day. Instead, we are pursuing a bill that won't become law.
This bill will not become law. The President has indicated he would
veto

[[Page H5933]]

it. So we are just taking up the time of this body to debate a bill
that affects people in a few States. Of course, I understand Iowa and
Nebraska share one of the CO-OPs that went out of business. New York
and Oregon are the others.
I hail from a State where the CO-OP went out of business. I would add
that it went out of business, with the actions of State regulators, at
the right time, namely, before the enrollment period.
So the question I brought before the Rules Committee yesterday, and I
think it is very important for anybody who supports this bill to
answer: Why did the State regulators in those States allow those CO-OPs
to fail mid-period? Why weren't they ahead of the curve in those States
to make sure that, if they had to fail, they did so in an orderly
manner prior to the enrollment period? It is irresponsible of State
regulators to allow insolvent plans into the marketplace.
Instead of discussing that and instead of launching an investigation
into that, instead of having a GAO report on that, we are just doing a
bill that effectively bails them out. Another Republican taxpayer
bailout bill that we have before us today.
I have always been a big fan of the CO-OPs. In fact, the Consumer
Operated and Oriented Plan program was created to support the
development of nonprofit health insurance options in the individual
marketplace. They face a lot of challenges. And, sadly, in fact, we
wouldn't even be dealing with the fact that 17 of them have gone out of
business if the Republicans hadn't put a provision in the omnibus in
2016--which I was proud to oppose for this reason, among many others--
that defunded the healthcare CO-OPs.
So they already did an attack on the Affordable Care Act by defunding
the CO-OPs; and now they are saying we want to bail them out. Of
course, you want to bail them out now. You are responsible for letting
them fail in the first place.
Look, there are a lot of questions to answer before this body moves
forward with this failed Republican bailout bill, namely, where were
the State regulators?

{time} 1345

Why did they let these fail mid-cycle instead of, as they did in my
State, before the enrollment period ended?
Number two, why did you defend them in the first place? Didn't you
know that you would probably have to bail them out if you did?
And the third question I brought up in the Rules Committee is, why
are we even just talking about CO-OPs? What about if for-profit
insurance companies go out of business? Are we going to bail out those
consumers, too?
Now, I haven't seen that that has happened yet, but, look, these are
private companies; it is only a matter of time until some company makes
bad decisions and goes bankrupt and leaves its customers in the lurch.
Now, it is the job of State regulators to try to actuarially make
sure that those companies are sound and solvent; and if they are going
to disqualify one, to do so before the enrollment period, not midterm.
But let's be honest. Bad things happen, and probably someday a
company will go out of business in the middle of a term, despite the
best efforts of State regulators.
And what about those customers, and why would they be treated any
differently than the customers of CO-OPs?
Look, in the three States where the CO-OPs did close down mid-session
because of the ineffectiveness of State regulators, rather than
proposing a Republican taxpayer bailout, we should simply point people
to alternative insurance options. In fact, CO-OPs contacted every
customer over 20 times to assist with the process of finding a new plan
by e-mail, mailer, and phone. And in the event the available premiums
were too expensive, the Affordable Care Act already has what they call
a hardship exemption, where families can avoid paying any penalty. Just
as they do under this bill, they can do it without this bill as well.
In the three instances where CO-OP plans were terminated in the
middle of the year, the set of circumstances that this Republican
taxpayer bailout bill is designed to address, it appears that
individuals had ample time and options to find new coverage, even if
their own State regulators were asleep at the switch, and it does not
mean that the rest of us, that I have to go back to honest, hardworking
Coloradans and say, sorry, you have to bail out the Republican Congress
and their failure to include in the omnibus a plan to maintain the
solvency of the CO-OPs.
The financial penalty for forgoing coverage is one of the primary
incentives for what we call RomneyCare, or some call ObamaCare. By
circumventing the individual mandate, H.R. 954 undermines an essential
component of what was known as the Massachusetts plan, which is now the
Affordable Care Act.
But as we know, over 20 million Americans have obtained health
insurance, many for the first time. I am proud to say that in my home
State of Colorado, while we have a number of issues with regard to the
Affordable Care Act, one positive indicator that we can point to is
that the rate of individuals without insurance has dropped by half. It
is now a historically low 6.7 percent. It has never been that low in
the history of Colorado. For Colorado children, the uninsured rate is
even lower, 2.5 percent.
So nationwide, as we know, there are a lot of elements of the
Affordable Care Act that are very popular and important to maintain. No
one should be denied coverage for having a preexisting condition. Young
adults can afford health insurance by staying on their parents' plan.
The individual mandate is the flip side of making sure that people
aren't discriminated against because of preexisting conditions. You
can't have only a high-risk pool. You have to make sure that healthy
people are in the pool to keep the rates low for everybody. That is the
fundamental model that went into RomneyCare, and it was later adopted
as a bipartisan concept.
In addition, individuals have access to preventative services,
affordable prescription drugs, and are no longer subject to lifetime
caps that can leave them bankrupt if they have a serious illness. I
have heard from a number of constituents for whom that is very
important.
So, look, every law can use improvement. There is no doubt about
that. I was very strongly against the language in the Omnibus in 2016
that led to these CO-OPs going out of business and led to this
Republican bailout package. And the Affordable Care Act, of course, can
be improved.
So instead of discussing ways to roll back the successes of the
Affordable Care Act or do massive bailouts, we should be discussing
ways that we can make the law work better and prevent the need for
bailouts moving forward.
To this end, I, along with many of my colleagues, have been a long-
time supporter of establishing a public health insurance plan option. A
public health insurance plan option would go a long way to revitalizing
the individual marketplace through increased competition.
In 2010, I led an effort with my colleague from Maine, Representative
Chellie Pingree, to encourage Senator Reid to consider a public option
in the health care reform legislation that was being drafted. And I
have continued to call for a public option even after the Affordable
Care Act passed. It has been scored to have reduced the deficit by over
$200 billion and it would help the constituents in my district,
particularly in our mountain areas, by providing a more affordable
option within the individual exchange.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of Representative Schakowsky's H.R. 265,
the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act, which would require HHS to set
up a public health insurance option. I would point out that this
Republican bailout plan increases the deficit. Right? Small amount,
small amount.
You have the figures, my friend from Texas. I think--was it $40
million? How much does this bill increase the deficit? 12 million?
Very small amount, right; but still the wrong way.
The plan that I am supporting and that many Democrats support would
reduce the deficit by $200 billion.
So if the Republicans continue to go down this road of bailouts,
large and small, we are going to bankrupt this country. We are already
$20 trillion in debt. We have a deficit of half a trillion dollars.
Yes, every little bit matters.

[[Page H5934]]

Again, the amount is small of this Republican bailout that increases
the deficit; but we could be going another path which is fiscally
responsible, increases consumer choice, and brings down costs.
Furthermore, since this bill will be vetoed anyway and this isn't
going to become law, it is hardly worth the time to discuss. What we
should be talking about are the very real public health crises. Indeed,
public health, health-related bill, let's talk about health.
Let's talk about the fact that it has been over a year since Flint
administrators first became aware of toxic levels of lead in the water
of the city, which still exist; and over that time the body has sat on
its hands, day after day, week after week. Exposure to lead is very
harmful to children who are at significantly elevated risk of damage to
their nervous system, learning disabilities, impaired development, that
not only are crises for them and their families, but ultimately
will cost taxpayers even more over time. Yet, Congress hasn't allocated
any help to even replace the pipes in Flint while children in the
community are still using bottled water to drink and bathe, at great
expense, I might add.

Bottled water, for those of you who drink bottled water--Mr. Speaker,
I don't know if you do--you know it is quite expensive, right?
Better to drink water out of your tap. Let's fix the underlying
condition.
Then, of course, we have the Zika crisis. Nineteen thousand Americans
have contracted the virus so far this year; 1,800 of those Americans
are pregnant women who have an elevated risk of having associated
consequences for their children, including microcephaly. Funding is
essential to reduce the building diagnostic backlog and develop a
method of testing, a vaccination, and better ways to address this
health crisis as it spreads across Florida, south Texas, and the
Caribbean.
But instead of debating Zika or Flint or even a continuing resolution
to keep the government open past Friday--which we haven't spent a
moment on yet even though Government funding runs out Friday--or a
bipartisan balanced budget amendment or any of the other great ideas
that have been brought forward in a bipartisan way, instead of doing
any of that, a symbolic bill will be met by a veto, yet another
Republican bailout that costs taxpayers and increases the deficit.
We have a bill that does nothing, that won't become law. It is a part
of a wider effort to increase the deficit and force hardworking
taxpayers in Colorado to bail out the failures of State regulators in
four States.
Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the deficit. It undermines a component
of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't even address the failure of
State regulators. It doesn't even address the fact that a policy that
Republicans put in the 2016 Omnibus has led to the need for this
bailout. Simply put, this is not part of the solution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan no fly, no buy
legislation. It would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of
explosives and firearms to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
Republicans have refused to act on this commonsense legislation. Some
of you might have heard at the debate yesterday that both Presidential
contenders from both parties support this legislation. It is common
sense.
If we don't let somebody fly on an airplane, if they are on the
terrorist watch list, why would we let them quietly assemble an
arsenal?
We need to check it out. Of course, if they are wrongly put on that
list, of course let's have a way to get them off that list right away.
So if they have a legitimate reason to buy a gun and they are not a
terrorist, they shouldn't be on that list. But not buying a gun is the
least of their inconveniences. If they are on that list, they can't
even fly in most cases.
Yet, Republicans continue to fail to act on this commonsense
legislation despite being supported by Donald Trump, by Hillary
Clinton, by many other leaders of both parties.
We have the opportunity, if I can defeat the previous question with
this vote, to actually take action and close this glaring loophole that
allows terrorists to buy firearms and explosives right now in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again, rather than have this Republican
bailout bill that increases the deficit, we could be discussing making
it harder for terrorists to buy explosives and assemble arsenals. Okay?
That is the choice we have in this vote. It is a choice I am willing
to make, Mr. Speaker. It is a choice that every Member will be called
upon to make when they vote ``yea'' and they say, Let's do a bailout
that increases the deficit, or they vote ``nay'' and join me and say,
You know what, let's make it harder for terrorists to buy explosives
and firearms, a policy supported by both Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton.
That is the choice we will have in moments, and it is one I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think deeply about before they
cast their ``yes'' vote or before they cast their ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, we have three calendar days left in this fiscal year,
and our limited legislative time is not being spent well. We could be
devoting our last few days to addressing Zika, to making it harder for
terrorists to assemble arsenals, to addressing the disaster in Flint,
Michigan, to stem the tide of opioid addiction ravaging this country
and so many families that I have heard from in Colorado.
None of these public health crises will be addressed if we don't
consider a bill to keep the government open beyond September 30;
instead, we are considering yet another Republican bailout--increases
the deficit, unnecessary, and lets State regulators off the hook, bails
them out.
H.R. 954 implements an unnecessary, uncalled-for exemption, distracts
us from the real conversations we should be having about how we can
make health care more affordable and how we can reduce our budget
deficit. This bill is simply an irresponsible process. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First off, just to correct the record, I was asked about the
budgetary effect of this bill, and it is negative $4 million over the
next 10 years.
Congress did not defund the CO-OPs. The risk corridor program that
was passed by this Congress in 2010, associated with the Affordable
Care Act, was never fully funded in the first place.
This bill under our consideration today does not bail out anyone. It
does not bail out the CO-OPs. It eliminates a penalty--a penalty
imposed on consumers who did everything they could to comply with the
law known as the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act.
Look, if I ran the zoo, I would get rid of the individual mandate
tomorrow. These individuals, under the individual mandate, covered by
insurance which they were forced to purchase, and then goes bankrupt,
through no fault of their own, they are going to get penalized for not
having coverage. It is almost Kafkaesque in its design.
State legislators have virtually no control over the CO-OPs. Control
of the business model is completely centralized within the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services. The CO-OP model was fundamentally
unsound from the start, another example of this administration's
propensity to conduct dangerous experiments with our Nation's health
care. Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has continued
to stand in the way of the flexibility that the co-ops actually need to
become fiscally sustainable.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of this
important bill to provide relief for a tax increase looming over
Americans who tried, tried, and tried to follow the rules of the
Affordable Care Act and, yet, have

[[Page H5935]]

been let down by this administration's failed policies.
I certainly thank Mr. Smith on the Ways and Means Committee for
proposing this legislation and shepherding it through the committee
process.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 893 Offered by Mr. Polis

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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 who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 893, if
ordered;
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 892; and
Adoption of House Resolution 892, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 176, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 559]

YEAS--244

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
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
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)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
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
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--176

[[Page H5936]]

Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Beatty
Duckworth
Granger
Hinojosa
Payne
Pelosi
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Westmoreland

{time} 1422

Messrs. LARSEN of Washington, MURPHY of Florida, and AL GREEN of
Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 177, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 560]

YEAS--243

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
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)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
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)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--177

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Beatty
Duckworth
Hinojosa
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Westmoreland

{time} 1430

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.

____________________