[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2647-H2652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, SELF-INSURANCE PROTECTION ACT
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 241
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1304) to
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health insurance
coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance obtained by
certain plan sponsors of group health plans. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce 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 Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, in 2010, then-President Obama said: ``If you
like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.''
Unfortunately, at least 4.7 million Americans now know that was
simply not true. ObamaCare was a takeover of the American healthcare
system. The law's mandates have been burdensome, destroying 300,000
small-business jobs and forcing an estimated 10,000 small businesses to
close. Premiums are skyrocketing, and choices are dwindling.
[[Page H2648]]
House Resolution 241 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1304, the
Self-Insurance Protection Act, an important part of the Republican
effort to repair the damage ObamaCare has done to insurance markets.
More than 150 million Americans--62 percent of workers--receive their
health insurance from their employer. In fact, almost all firms with at
least 200 or more employees offer health benefits, and just over half
of smaller firms with 3 to 199 employees offer health insurance.
Overwhelmingly, Americans and their employers like this system of
employer-sponsored health care; and for many years, employer health
plans have been successfully regulated by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, or ERISA.
{time} 1315
Typically, small and large employers offer healthcare coverage to
employees either in self-funded arrangements or purchase fully insured
plans from an insurer.
Under self-insurance plans, employers cover the costs of their
employees' medical expenses. Employers can either process claims in-
house or work with a third-party administrator to oversee and implement
the plans.
ERISA regulates both fully insured and self-insured plans, but only
self-insured plans are exempt from the patchwork of mandates imposed
under State insurance law. Furthermore, employer-sponsored self-insured
plans are not subject to the same requirements under ObamaCare, as are
fully insured plans.
Thus, self-insurance plans are desirable and successful because they
are free from many government restrictions and regulations and allow
employers to tailor their plans to meet the unique needs of their
employees and to innovate.
For example, these plans do not require employees to purchase
government-mandated coverage options that their employees do not want
or need. This helps lower costs for working families while ensuring
access to high-quality health care.
In hearings before the Education and the Workforce Committee, on
which I sit, we heard testimony that today self-insurance is often the
only way employers can afford coverage, thanks to the burdens of
ObamaCare.
Mr. Speaker, in Alabama, we like to say: if it ain't broke, don't fix
it. Prior to ObamaCare, there were problems in our Nation's healthcare
system, but the successful model of employer self-insurance wasn't one
of them. Today, self-insurance remains perhaps the best way for
employers to provide health care to their workers.
Unfortunately, the prior administration seemed intent on disrupting
this successful healthcare model. Rather than leave self-insurance
plans alone, they repeatedly explored ways to impose new regulations
that would negatively impact self-insurance. Specifically, the Obama
administration wanted to disrupt the model by regulating stop-loss
insurance and treating it as if it were health insurance.
Employers who self-insure often purchase stop-loss insurance to cover
large medical claims and to protect against the financial risks such
claims can pose. Despite decades of Federal regulation on employer
health plans under ERISA, stop-loss insurance has never been regulated
by the Federal Government. That is because stop-loss insurance is
actually a financial risk management tool designed to protect employers
from catastrophic claim expenses. Remarkably, in a regulatory grab, the
Obama administration tried to reclassify it as ``group health
insurance.''
Mr. Speaker, if the last 7 years have taught us anything, it is that
more Federal control over health insurance does not make health care
more affordable for the American people. Stop-loss insurance is not
health insurance, and it should not be regulated like it is.
The Self-Insurance Protection Act simply updates the law to make
clear that Federal bureaucrats cannot redefine stop-loss insurance as
group health insurance. This is about reaffirming longstanding policies
and ensuring workers continue to have access to a health insurance
model that is proven to lower costs and provide flexibility to
consumers.
This bill will provide workers and employers alike with the
regulatory certainty that they have desperately wanted and needed. They
shouldn't have to worry about unelected Federal bureaucrats stepping in
and destroying their healthcare system.
To put it simply, this bill is necessary in order to prevent future
bureaucratic overreach that would destroy the self-insurance model that
has been so successful for so many working families.
I also think this bill is an area where we should have some
bipartisan cooperation. It passed out of the Education and the
Workforce Committee earlier this year on a voice vote, and I hope it
earns bipartisan support here in the full House.
As we continue our efforts to increase choices, lower costs, and
provide better healthcare options for working families, let us not
forget to shore up and protect the health insurance programs that are
actually working and getting the job done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 241 and
the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for
debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate a rule for a piece of legislation
that many on this side of the aisle do not necessarily have a serious
issue with. The attempt here today is to ensure that a thing that is
already happening continues to happen.
I suppose that, the next time we meet, we will take up a bill that
declares that the Moon is not the Sun. Doing so is a complete waste of
time, but that does not seem to necessarily be dispositive when
deciding whether we should legislate on an issue these days.
Look, I get it. My friends across the aisle took one on the chin the
other week when their Affordable Care Act repeal bill--a bill they
spent 17 days working on, even though they had 7 long years to prepare
for it--went down in flames in a most public and spectacular fashion,
and now they need some time to dust themselves off and become
reoriented.
The problem is, while they are doing that, while they are recovering
from the miserable failure that was their attempt to strip 24 million
Americans of their health care, they are burning valuable time--time
that should be used to tackle more pressing issues like addressing the
debt ceiling and fixing our crumbling infrastructure.
Let me also take this opportunity to remind my Republican colleagues
that, while we spend our time here today debating these filler bills,
there are only 7 legislative days, including today, remaining before
the government runs out of funding. But are we tackling any of these
importance issues or ensuring the government remains open? No.
Instead, we have before us a bill that addresses an issue that is not
an issue. On top of that, this legislation was actually supposed to be
the third bucket of their three-bucket strategy to end health care for
millions of Americans.
We saw how sturdy the first bucket was a couple of weeks ago. In
fact, the bucket we are talking about today was actually referred to as
the ``sucker's bucket'' by Senator Cruz. That is not exactly a glowing
endorsement.
Indeed, some, like Senator Cotton, have referred to all this bucket
talk as simply a bunch of political spin. Whatever it is, it is
certainly a bucket that has a hole in it.
In all of the uncertainty facing my Republican friends, one thing
becomes crystal clear: they have no plan whatsoever to help working
Americans achieve the American Dream. They are adrift, in general, and
most particularly when it comes to health care.
What do they really want? At first, it was repeal, then it was repeal
and replace, then it was repeal and delay, followed finally by access
to coverage, and would you believe another one: patient-centered.
That is repeal, repeal and replace, repeal and delay, access to
coverage, and patient-centered. We still don't have a plan. Then it
turned toward a three-bucket strategy that makes little to any sense,
let alone to the American people but even to powerful elected leaders
in the Republican Party.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, do you know what all this talk
was?
[[Page H2649]]
Exactly what Senator Cotton said: nothing but political spin.
My fear is that it will all come down to whatever it takes to win in
the eyes of the other side of the aisle, regardless of the consequences
to the American people.
While we were told there was no plan B, we now hear there is a plan
B. Donald John Trump ``doesn't lose,'' and doesn't like to lose. So I
guess they are going to pass something, even if it is just this bill
that does absolutely nothing, just so our Republican friends can say
they did something. I am sure Donald John Trump will tweet about this
great victory.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans must end their secretive plan B option and
embrace the opportunity to do what is right, which is to pursue a path
that strengthens and builds upon the strong foundation that has been
set by the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats stand ready to work with my friends in the Republican Party
on this task to continue to provide affordable coverage to millions of
American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida said that the Moon is not the
Sun. Well, stop-loss insurance is not health insurance, but the Obama
administration tried to make it so. Because they tried to make it so,
we need to put into statutory law what I think we all agree on both
sides of the aisle not only is the law but should be the law so that
there is no question about it in the future. It is unfortunate we have
to do that, but, because of some of the actions of the prior
administration, it is necessary.
He talked about the strong foundation of the ACA, ObamaCare. That
foundation is crumbling beneath the program. We now have more insurers
jumping out of exchanges. My home State of Alabama is down to one
carrier on the exchange. Soon enough, we may find that, in Alabama,
like some other States, there are no carriers. This isn't a foundation.
It is a foundation made of sand--and the sand is leaking out. Something
has to be done.
Today's bill is a step--not the only step--in that direction. I know
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with what we are
doing here in substance, and I wish we would just come together and get
this bill done so that we can assure that the self-insured smaller
employers and larger employers have the protection that they need for
the working families that participate in their programs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Donald John Trump signed into law a measure
that eliminates Americans' internet privacy. With Trump's signature,
internet service providers will now be able to sell your personal
information to the highest bidder.
Mr. Speaker, we stand here ready to fight for the privacy of the
American people.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up legislation which would reinstate the Federal
Communications Commission's internet privacy rule.
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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a member of the Armed Services and Science, Space,
and Technology Committees to discuss our proposal.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, if today's vote on the previous question
fails, we will have the opportunity to vote on my bill, H.R. 1868,
Restoring American Privacy Act of 2017, which will reverse last night's
disastrous action by President Trump when he signed a partisan
congressional resolution allowing internet providers to sell their
customers' personal information without their knowledge or consent.
Before my time in Congress, I started my career as a systems analyst.
I have firsthand experience writing code, and I can tell you that the
first thing to protect vulnerable and sensitive data is to make sure it
is kept private.
S.J. Res. 34, which the House passed last Tuesday, unraveled those
vital protections for sensitive information belonging to millions of
Americans nationwide.
{time} 1330
The resolution negating essential protections for private citizens
was signed by President Trump last night. The October 2016 FCC rule was
the only rule that required internet service providers to obtain
consumers' permission before selling their private internet browsing
history and other sensitive information.
I am simply shocked that my colleagues across the aisle would vote
for a measure that violates American privacy by selling your most
personal and intimate information, including your email content and
your app usage, all without your consent. Not only is this wrong and a
blatant violation of policy, but it jeopardizes Americans' personal
data and puts them at risk of hacking.
Repealing the FCC rule with S.J. Res. 34 allows broadband providers
to turn over your info to the highest bidder or anyone else they want,
including the government, without a warrant, without ever telling you.
That is right. I will repeat it. Repealing the FCC rule with S.J. Res.
34 allows broadband providers to turn over your private information to
the highest bidder or anyone else they want, including the government,
without a warrant, without ever telling you.
Even worse, S.J. Res. 34 also tells providers they no longer have to
use reasonable measures to protect consumers' personal information.
This is absolutely unacceptable. We are living in a time where identity
theft and internet hacking has become the new norm. We must provide
consumers with these protections. No American wants their most personal
information to be up for grabs.
Eliminating this rule prevents the FCC from publishing rules that are
substantially the same absent additional legislation, establishing a
very dangerous precedent for private citizens. Americans should have
the right to decide how their internet providers use their personal
information.
What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simple. This bill makes clear
that the American people's browser histories are not for sale. The
American people's health information: not for sale. The American
people's financial information: not for sale. And the American people's
location data: not for sale.
It is a simple concept and one I hope my colleagues across the aisle
will recognize and support. The American people don't want the
legislation that was signed last night. In overwhelming numbers, they
are calling Congress and letting it be known that they want to keep
their private information private.
I am proud to stand up for the American people by introducing the
Restoring American Privacy Act of 2017, which reverses this misguided
resolution and says, once and for all, that ISPs cannot sell customers'
personal information without their knowledge, without their permission.
This bill says that your privacy is not for sale, period.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is time for my friends on the other side of the aisle to end their
self-proclaimed political spin designed to bewilder and confuse average
Americans, making them believe that their Republican representatives
are fighting for the future of their health care and the health care of
their families, when what they are really doing is fighting for
powerful corporate interests.
Now is the time for us to face facts and accept truths.
Fact: House Republicans made an attempt to replace the Affordable
Care Act with a bill that caused such an outcry from their own
constituents that they were forced to pull it.
Truth: There are serious issues in health care that need to be
addressed for the betterment of all Americans, and it is going to take
the effort of both parties in both the House and the Senate working
together to strengthen our healthcare system.
[[Page H2650]]
No more smokescreens, no more political rhetoric, only collaborative
discourse using only the well-being of the American people as our
compass. It is this approach that will steer us back onto course for
the betterment of this and future generations. Unfortunately, this bill
does not further that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying measure,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for his remarks. I
completely agree with him. Both parties should be working together to
make sure that we provide what we can reasonably for the health care of
the people of America, and we should be collaborating, not just in this
House across the aisle but in the Senate as well. I think it is a good
place to start right here with this bill because we really don't have a
substantive disagreement about this bill.
Both sides understand that stop-loss insurance is not health
insurance. It is just the Obama administration tried to turn it into
that. This bill would stop that and bring the certainty we need back to
these self-insured plans that mainly small employers have and make sure
that we have in place for working families across America a system that
is working for them and maintain that.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join
with us, will collaborate with us, and that our colleagues in the other
House, in the Senate, will do as well and pass this legislation because
it truly is bipartisan in substance and, I hope today, in the vote.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
241 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 241 Offered by Mr. Hastings
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.
1868) to provide that providers of broadband Internet access
service shall be subject to the privacy rules adopted by the
Federal Communications Commission on October 27, 2016. 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 Energy and
Commerce. 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. 1868.
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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 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 the resolution, if ordered;
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 240; and adoption of
House Resolution 240, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 188, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
YEAS--232
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
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
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
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
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
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
[[Page H2651]]
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--188
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
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
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
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
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bridenstine
Davis, Danny
Gallagher
Grothman
McEachin
Murphy (FL)
Rogers (AL)
Slaughter
Visclosky
{time} 1403
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, Messrs. RUSH,
JOHNSON of Georgia, and Ms. CLARKE of New York changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 184, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 212]
AYES--234
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
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
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
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
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
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
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
Sinema
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
NOES--184
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
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
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
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
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Bridenstine
Davis, Danny
Gallagher
Grothman
Hoyer
McEachin
Murphy (FL)
Pelosi
Rogers (AL)
Slaughter
Visclosky
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1413
Mr. PETERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.
[[Page H2652]]
____________________