Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1193-H1200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 43, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL RULE BY SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 69, PROVIDING
FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL RULE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY
17, 2017, THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2017

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 123 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 123

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 43) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule
submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating
to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients
in selecting subrecipients. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 69) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule
of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non-
Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and
Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska''.
All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
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
Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from
February 17, 2017, through February 24, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.

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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 123 provides for a rule to
consider two Congressional Review Act resolutions which will undo
burdensome and harmful regulations put into place by the Obama
administration during the final hours of his Presidency. The rule
brings before the House these resolutions so that Congress may remove,
through the proper legislative process, rules promulgated by
bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This
process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives
in the Congress--to fight for their constituents' rights and liberties.
House Resolution 123 provides for a closed rule for each of the
Congressional Review Act resolutions, both H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res.
69, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose
of each is to remove a harmful regulation from the Federal Register.
The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the
majority and the minority leader or their designees, for H.J. Res. 43,
and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking
member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for H.J. Res. 69. On each
resolution contained in the rule, the minority is afforded the
customary motion to recommit.
H.J. Res. 43 is a joint resolution which would repeal the Obama
administration's midnight rule that takes away States' ability to
direct funding within their own borders to certain healthcare providers
that conform to the States' values.
In her final days in office, Secretary Mathews Burwell pushed forward
a rule that would require States to fund, with public dollars,
facilities that perform abortions, potentially against the will of the
people of that given State. This flies in the face of the 10th
Amendment which grants to States the authority to make such decisions
within their borders and to prioritize which healthcare providers
should receive funding based on the greatest need in their own
communities.
Those of us who care about the carefully crafted Federal system which
our Founding Fathers set up, which allows different States to operate
differently based upon their own values and priorities, recognize the
Obama rule for what it is: a power grab by the Federal Government. This
is why the House will take up this resolution today--to continue to
fight for states' rights--and will repeal this burdensome regulation
that ties the hands of every State legislature and ties the hands of
every Governor in the Nation.
H.J. Res. 69 is a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal an
overreaching regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
which usurps Alaska's ability to manage its own lands within its own
borders. Federal law has long recognized that Alaska--that Alaska--and
her elected officials are in the best position to make the decisions on
what actions to permit on the public lands in that State, whether those
lands are Federal, State, or private.
Despite this long precedent, codified by Congress in the Alaska
National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Obama administration moved
forward in its waning days with a rule that imposes Federal
restrictions on lands that have been, up until the end of the Obama
administration, successfully regulated by the State of Alaska. Like
H.J. Res. 43, this resolution recognizes the important 10th Amendment
protections put in place by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution
which protects states' rights to govern within their own borders.

[[Page H1194]]

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining
accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more
apparent than over the past few weeks where this Congress has needed to
step in and remove burdensome and unbalanced regulations put in place
by President Obama and his team just as they were walking out the door.
House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our
constituents against an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my
colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying Congressional
Review Act resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20
healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting
certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide
abortion with private funds.

February 3, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Senate Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and
Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and
public health professionals and the people they serve across
the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned
Parenthood health centers from participating in federal
health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family
planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood
from public health programs will severely curtail women's
access to essential health care services, including family
planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers
screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when
there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable
health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access
to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood
provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.
Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in
improving the health and lives of people across the country.
In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on
Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many
women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--
offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to
women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned
Parenthood health centers are in areas with health
professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas.
In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided
nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than
360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood
provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients
and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually
transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve
women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended
pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.
Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public
health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine
health care access in communities across the country.
Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650
health care centers across the country would prevent patients
from having timely access to basic preventive health care
services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood
patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in
addition to those who rely on other essential programs,
including maternal and child health programs and Centers for
Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer
screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the
only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50
percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a
medically underserved or health professional shortage area.
Because federal law already requires health care providers to
demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion,
prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned
Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these
life-saving services.
In addition to limiting patients access to health care,
defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that
approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to
650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive
health care within a year should Congress act to block all
Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood
health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned
Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement
through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to
taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the
increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive
care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded
health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss
of affordable family planning and reproductive health care
services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to
health care has on women and communities across the country,
and we therefore strongly support policies that improve
access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that
would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve
to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we
strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this
as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe,
legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive
health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to
participate in public health programs.
Sincerely,
American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of
Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical
Student Association, American Medical Women's Association
(AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological
Association, American Public Health Association, American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA:
Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.
Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance
Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive
Health Association, National Medical Association, National
Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and
Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in
Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive
Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for
Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal
Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican
majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and
women's access to health care.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern
for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite
promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have
started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's
choices, access to care, and economic security by:
Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital
protections for women;
Providing little to no details on their plans to replace
ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal
package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-
quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health
services;
Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag
rule, harming women around the world; and
Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion
Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House,
effectively banning private insurance companies from covering
comprehensive reproductive health services.
Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X
national family planning program through the Congressional
Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop
at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care.
Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning
services that all women need.
For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone
of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal
funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network
of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income,
uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking
confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics
helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies,
326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition
to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical
infrastructure needs for health centers, including new
medical equipment and staff training that are not
reimbursable under Medicaid and commercial insurance. This
infrastructure is vital to ensuring safe, quality care at
health centers which serve and provide basic health services
to high-need populations.
Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations,
Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that
block providers or classes of providers from participating in
a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's
qualifications to perform the required services. The networks
include providers ranging from state, county, and local
health departments as well as hospitals, family planning
councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified
health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In
fact, in instances when states have passed laws to

[[Page H1195]]

limit provider participation in Title X, federal courts have
consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and
preempted by, federal law.
In response to a growing number of states targeting family
planning providers for exclusion from key federal health
programs, including Title X, the previous Administration
proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X
Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting
Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in
December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning
services and supplies through qualified providers by
reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the
provision of services as part of its Title X project may
prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than
its ability to provide Title X services. During the
rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human
Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast
majority of which supported the rule.
Women across the United States, and the men who support
them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common
sense clarification has become a political football for
members of Congress who want to limit women's access to
comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand
in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive
access and care.
Sincerely,
Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone,
Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L.
Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry
McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva,
William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore,
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.
Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina
Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F.
Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D.
Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard,
Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John
Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E.
Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared
Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas,
Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren,
Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S.
Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko,
Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami
Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven
Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee,
Beto O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.
Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy
Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric
Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L.
Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle,
Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz,
Elizabeth H. Esty.
Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W.
Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson,
Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim
Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa
DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross,
Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.
John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell,
David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark
DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia
M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R.
Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben
Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.
Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J.
Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis,
Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis,
Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown,
Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John
Sarbanes, John B. Larson.
Members of Congress.

{time} 1230

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an
unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other
regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day
here.
Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy,
the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res.
43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access
to health care for women.
The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to
eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance
companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without
this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than
men.
Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before
this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for
their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of
people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a
billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the
Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.
The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go
beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been
around for four decades too long.
This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it
would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive
health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to
access constitutionally protected abortion services.
These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a
dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking
office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in
protest.
During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all
across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights.
These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American
history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here
in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest
reported anywhere in the country.
Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a
measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's
rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this
Congress, and it is only February.
Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative
healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD
testing to the men and women who need them most.
It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow
conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this
essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in
the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine
whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the
Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very
long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can
and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the
majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of
making their own decisions.
Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?
Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority,
the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in
generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the
majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention
into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass
it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the
public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the
business of taking away women's healthcare rights.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the
departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I
have always believed that this committee is like family and that we
have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the
deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies
this.
After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning
a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives.
His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.
During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is
beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who
was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a
precocious child.
Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark
legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the
Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.

[[Page H1196]]

The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel,
and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his
new endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
which would enable States to discriminate against healthcare providers
and deny women access to critical healthcare services.
This rule would put the only Federal program exclusively dedicated to
family planning and reproductive health services in jeopardy. It
reverses the Health and Human Services title X rule prohibiting
discrimination against title X healthcare providers. It would have
devastating healthcare consequences.
In 2015, 88 percent of patients at title X clinics received
subsidized or no-charge care, and many of these clinics provide primary
health care in addition to family planning services. This could upend
public health networks in communities across the country.

Supporters of this amendment claim that other health providers can
absorb the clients who would lose access to their title X clinics. This
is false. Community healthcare centers have said that they do not have
the capacity, and they are often not located near these patients.
We need to protect these healthcare providers. We need to uphold our
responsibility to the American people to provide critical services to
those who need them. I cannot and will not support this rule or this
resolution. It is detrimental to women's health in this country.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that H.J. Res. 43 would repeal
the Obama administration's rule and allow States to enjoy the freedom
and flexibility to distribute title X grant money in a way that serves
the needs of their constituents.
Just in the way of background, December 16, 2016, the Obama
administration finalized a rule that prevents States from eliminating
abortion providers from title X grant distributions. Title X is a
family planning program authorized in 1970, and was intended to provide
family planning services to low-income women. The Obama rule was widely
perceived as an attempt by the Obama administration to require States
to fund Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion business.
Prior to the Obama administration's rule, States were free to direct
their title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in
abortion. When States had this freedom, they were able to choose to
invest in women's health care instead of investing in Big Abortion.
States should be able to choose to prioritize family planning funds
to health clinics that offer a full range of healthcare services,
including family planning, but do not participate in abortion.
States can fully support family planning and other health services
without funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Planned
Parenthood only comprises 13 percent of approximately 4,100 title X
service sites.
Redirecting funds away from abortion providers does not reduce funds
for the title X program. When States set criteria that eliminates
abortion providers from title X distributions, those funds are then
directed to other clinics.
Eighty-seven percent of current title X service sites are comprised
of local health departments, local hospitals, and Federally qualified
health centers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I
really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime
of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will.
There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those
funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how
those funds are being used.
I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to
Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this
Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the
things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests
of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such
as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.
Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund
Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups
that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule
and H.J. Res. 69, which we will be debating tomorrow.
Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated its regulations
for national wildlife refuges in Alaska to prohibit the cruelest
killing methods of wolves, grizzly bears, and other native mammals in
Alaska.
The rule FWS put forward makes sense. It even makes clear that it
does not apply to subsistence hunting or restrict the taking of
wildlife for public safety purposes or in defense of property. Yet,
here we are, just 6 months later, and Republicans are pushing through
this resolution to overturn the rule and make egregious and cruel
hunting methods common practice in Alaska.
They are inhumane methods, such as denning of wolves and their pups,
using airplanes to scout and shoot grizzly bears, and trapping grizzly
bears with steel-jawed traps. These cruel methods should never be
allowed anywhere. This resolution is irresponsible and inhumane.

As with other Congressional Review Act resolutions, H.J. Res. 69 will
have a chilling effect. This and future administrations would be
prohibited from ever issuing a similar rule, making inhumane and
reprehensible hunting methods the law of the land.
This resolution handcuffs our Federal wildlife managers from
protecting our refuges, our national resources, and our wildlife. We
must ensure that our children and grandchildren will someday enjoy the
majestic national beauty of the native mammals in Alaska and across our
great Nation.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and also vote ``no'' on H.J.
Res. 69.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I reference a letter that was sent to Speaker Paul Ryan
and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy by a number of sports-related
organizations.
They say: ``We write representing organizations that collectively
include millions of wildlife conservationists . . . wildlife
enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49
from Cong. Young of Alaska. . . . Our community exhausted all Executive
Branch appeals and remedies urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed
Rule, and revise it to reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the
State of Alaska and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to
nullify this final rule.''
They go on to say: ``This final rule boldly preempts the authority of
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both
recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the
state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska
National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on a
meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity
and Environmental Health. . . . Many members of our organizations enjoy
Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for
unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable
management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State
working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably
consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state-
federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta).

[[Page H1197]]

Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against restricting
the family planning services that are provided by title X.
Just prior to signing title X into law, back in 1970, President
Richard Nixon recognized how essential family planning was to public
health. He actually sent a message to Congress telling them, ``no
American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance
because of her economic condition.'' Last year, Mr. Speaker, President
Obama reaffirmed that sentiment by making family planning services a
part of basic health care, regardless of where one lives. Although
Presidents Nixon and Obama couldn't be more divided in their politics,
even they were united behind title X. I believe this is understandable,
considering how title X ensures basic preventive health care and family
planning services for 4 million low-income people every year.
In my district, title X family planning services saves an average of
$7 on Medicaid-related costs for every dollar of Federal investment.
That means that clinics in my district, like Mar Monte, are able to
help more women and men receive a full range of healthcare services.
Rather than restricting family planning clinics, we should be
promoting, we should be protecting, and we should be preserving access
to those vital services, especially for those families that value and
need it most.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter written to
the Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell signed by 110 Members of the House
and Senate to express strong opposition to the Department of Health and
Human Services' September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled
``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in
Selecting Subrecipients.''

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2016.
Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Burwell, We write to express our strong
opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled
``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients
in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the
Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose
for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an
attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives.
Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the
notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the
Department's stated rationale adequately supports its
conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus
are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer
comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed
notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to
provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does
appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range
of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in
need of publicly funded family planning services served, and
the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers
with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and
``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that
list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and
recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control
and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing
Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and
the US Office of Population Affairs.''
To further complicate the argument about quality and
effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed
rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes.
The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic
statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual
patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require
grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you
know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised
by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of
Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical
review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to
finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing
or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated
the following in its May 2009 Report Brief:
``The committee concludes that the program does not collect
all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact.
Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework
to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the
family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee
concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of
client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to
assess the program's overall progress.''
We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully
adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming
that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an
``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to
us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so
in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also
therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately
determine in every case whether state or local project
recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar
with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical
region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating
subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the
federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for
that of state or local governments--particularly when the
criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that
judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts.
Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt
its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we
implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health
care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its
website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in
planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X
is to contribute to ``improved health for women and
infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally
qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive
and primary health care services than providers with a
reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than
providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport
with that stated mission.
We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill-
supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this
proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a
formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from
your Department.
Sincerely,
Joni K. Ernst,
United States Senator.
Diane Black,
United States Congressman.
Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Bill
Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve
Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James
Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry
Moran (R-KS), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco
Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), David
Vitter (R-LA).
In addition, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rick Allen
(R-GA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Andy Barr
(R-KY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN),
Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-LA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Michael
Burgess (R-TX), Earl ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA), Tom Cole (R-
OK), Chris Collins (R-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Conaway
(R-TX), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff
Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN).
Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), John
Fleming, (R-LA), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE),
Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bob Gibbs (R-OH),
Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC),
Tom Graves (R-GA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Andy Harris (R-MD),
Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jody Hice (R-
GA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Randy
Hultgren (R-IL), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS).
Bill Johnson (R-OH), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-
NC), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steve King (R-
IA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert E.
Latta (R-OH), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Barry Loudermilk (R-
GA), Mia Love (R-UT), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny
Marchant (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Mark
Meadows (R-NC), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Markwayne Mullin (R-
OK), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX).
Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Gary Palmer (AL), Steve Pearce (R-
NM), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Joe
Pitts (R-PA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Price
(R-GA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Phil Roe
(R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Keith
Rothfus (R-PA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Steve Scalise (R-LA),
Austin Scott (R-GA).
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), John
Shimkus (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ann
Wagner (R-MO), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brad
Wenstrup (R-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), and
Ted Yoho (R-FL).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence
community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent
election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling
revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of
the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian
intelligence officials during that campaign.
Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing
the

[[Page H1198]]

same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as governments
have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake here, and it
is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to
the bottom of this.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and
Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan
commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting
hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to
Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them
came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is
troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were
fought and won generations ago.
The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are
necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at
women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have
always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health
care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a
decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should
consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual
adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room
until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are
going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons.
The government should not be in the business of doing that. The
majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first
order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and
it is shameful.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal
the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans
in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane
tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and
killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists
who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority
that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a
potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in a time when so many Americans are looking
for ideas and policies we can unite around, one point of agreement
stands out. There is strong consensus among Americans that they do not
want their taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortions. A Marist poll
released in January revealed that 61 percent of Americans feel this
way.
States have always had the freedom to direct funds away from abortion
providers, such as the Nation's largest abortion provider, Planned
Parenthood, and there are many reasons States may wish to do so. The
most important reason, one that we should all carefully consider, is
that abortion is not health care. Abortion takes the lives of unborn
children and hurts women. Many States have recognized this tragic
reality and, as a result, have chosen to award funds to health clinics
and organizations that do not provide abortions.
But in December, the Obama administration issued a regulation that
forces many States to drastically alter their previous course of
action. The regulation requires States to include abortion providers as
recipients of title X grant distributions. Not only does this
regulation ignore the American people's wish that their tax dollars be
directed away from abortion providers, it also denies States the
flexibility to choose to allocate title X funds in a way that meets the
needs of their citizens.
H.J. Res. 43 disapproves of this unacceptable regulation, allowing
States to return to the status quo under which they were operating
prior to the rule's issuance. If States wish to disburse title X funds
away from abortion providers, that wish should be respected. For these
reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and H.J.
Res. 43.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two
critical Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal burdensome
Federal regulations dropped on the doorstep of the American people in
the waning hours of the Obama administration. The rules the House will
be voting to repeal today would infringe upon states' rights to govern
themselves within their own borders and would impose new Federal
requirements and oversight in contravention of the 10th Amendment. This
is why removing these regulations is critical. It is critical to
maintaining the proper State-Federal balance that our Founding Fathers
so carefully crafted in our Constitution.
I thank Representative Diane Black and Representative Don Young for
their work on these pieces of legislation to protect states' rights. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two
underlying resolutions.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 123 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign
Interference in the 2016 Election. 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 Foreign Affairs. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 356.
____

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

[[Page H1199]]

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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the
question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 93]

YEAS--233

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
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)
Zeldin

NAYS--190

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Carter (GA)
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Mulvaney
Payne
Poe (TX)
Soto
Zinke

{time} 1318

So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall
No. 93.
Stated against:
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 93.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). 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 233,
nays 188, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 94]

YEAS--233

[[Page H1200]]

Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
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)
Zeldin

NAYS--188

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Blumenauer
Carter (GA)
Cummings
Lynch
Mulvaney
Payne
Poe (TX)
Roskam
Titus
Zinke

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1325

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.

____________________