Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4867-H4874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2581, VERIFY FIRST ACT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1094, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2017

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 378 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 378

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2581) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the
provision of social security numbers as a condition of
receiving the health insurance premium tax credit. All points
of order against

[[Page H4868]]

consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1094) to amend
title 38, United States Code, to improve the accountability
of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill 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 Veterans' Affairs; and
(2) one motion to commit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, 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. BUCK. 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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. This rule provides for debate on the final
negotiated bill between the House and the Senate. This process began
last Congress and resulted in the House passing H.R. 1259 in March of
this year.
The Senate introduced and passed the version of the bill we have
before us today by voice vote. It mirrors the reforms contained in
Chairman Roe's bill that the House has already passed by a bipartisan
vote.
Mr. Speaker, we often talk about veterans in this country: We thank
them for their sacrifice; we applaud them at sporting events; we tell
ourselves that we must take care of them, must repay them for the
service to our Nation. But in the past few years, we have discovered
that America's care for our veterans has been wholly inadequate. The
Department of Veterans Affairs has failed them.
Shameful misconduct at the VA has been rampant, and it has hurt our
veterans:
In 2014, we learned that the Phoenix VA concealed extremely long wait
lines for patients and that up to 40 vets may have died while waiting
for care at the facility;
Just last year, we discovered that a VA Hospital in Colorado Springs
also falsified wait time records. The majority of patients at that
hospital faced wait times over 30 days, and 28 patients had an average
wait time of 76 days. One veteran is even thought to have committed
suicide because he wasn't referred for mental healthcare, even though
he had been deemed at risk for suicide.
That is why Congress needs to act. S. 1094, the Department of
Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of
2017, allows the Secretary of the VA to hold all employees at the
agency accountable for their conduct.
We desperately need this legislation, not because all the employees
at the VA have problems. Quite the opposite. Most VA employees show up
to work every day because they are passionate about serving our
Nation's veterans. But there are bad apples, people who put our
veterans in danger. These people must be held accountable, and,
frankly, many of them must be fired.
This bill empowers the Secretary to reprimand, suspend, or remove VA
employees who have engaged in misconduct. It also permits the Secretary
to recoup bonuses if an employee performed poorly or conducted
themselves inappropriately and to recoup relocation expenses for fraud,
waste, or malfeasance.
The bill also bolsters protection for whistleblowers, creating an
office within the VA devoted to protecting those who expose wrongdoing.
Supervisors will be taught how to protect whistleblowers and will be
held accountable for how well they do.
And the bill requires reporting to Congress on the performance of
senior executives at the VA and on the outcomes of disciplinary actions
at the agency.
You may be wondering why Congress has taken such an in-depth interest
in an executive branch agency, and I will tell you why. It is our job.
The legislative branch was designed to oversee the executive branch.
We appropriate the funds used to pay the salaries of everyone working
at the VA. These funds come from the taxpayer. For the sake of the
taxpayer, we must ensure that the VA is serving its purpose.
But this bill also empowers the Secretary of the VA, allowing him or
her to take immediate action to protect veterans. We can't wait for
long appeals processes when a bad employee on the front lines of a VA
hospital is harming our veterans.
This legislation should not be controversial. Both Democrats and
Republicans want the best for our veterans. This legislation, the
legislation we are discussing today, gives the VA Secretary and
Congress more tools to hold employees accountable because if we are
holding employees accountable, then we are protecting our veterans from
abuse.
This bill is one small way to say thank you to those men and women
who have served our country. We can never adequately repay them, but we
can do our best to provide them with sufficient medical care.
I urge you to support this important legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for
yielding me the necessary and customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of
two separate pieces of legislation: S. 1094, the Department of Veterans
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act; and H.R. 2581,
the Verify First Act.
I begin with S. 1094, legislation aimed at bringing enhanced
accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs and improving the
care we provide to our Nation's veterans. Among other things, this bill
codifies in law the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection at the VA and streamlines the process to demote, remove, or
suspend VA employees if evidence proves they engaged in misconduct or
poor performance.
Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, we had the
opportunity to hear from the chairman and ranking member of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee about this legislation, Dr. Roe and Mr.
Walz. They discussed the bipartisan nature in which they have worked on
this issue, along with the bipartisan work done in the Senate, to craft
legislation that they hope can achieve strong bipartisan support in
this body.
It is because of this display of bipartisanship and cooperation and a
semblance of regular order that I am dismayed that I must now address
the process and substance by which we are considering the second bill
encompassed in this rule, H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act.

{time} 1230

Let me connect the dots for you on how we got to this point, and bear
with me. The Republican majority's path to take healthcare from 23
million Americans has been as convoluted as it has been chaotic.
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you and my colleagues should remember,
first, the Republican mantra was repeal. Then it was repeal and
replace. Then it was repeal and delay, followed by access to coverage,
and then, patient centered.
Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle settled on a
three-bucket strategy. The first bucket of this strategy was the
Republicans'

[[Page H4869]]

American Health Care Act. The majority brought their first iteration of
this bill to the floor after working on it for 17 days, and, with no
hearings, only to have it go down in flames in the most public and
spectacular fashion.
So they went back to the drawing board--not to improve the bill, or
improve healthcare for the American people, mind you, but to garner
enough Republican votes for a bill that ultimately had 17 percent
approval ratings. And they added a manager's amendment to get support,
then they added another manager's amendment, then another, and another.
Then with a bill patched together with the wants and wishes of
powerful healthcare lobbyists and tax breaks for the superwealthy, with
no CBO score, and with no way for the American people, let alone their
own Members, to actually know what was in the bill, the majority pushed
the bill through the House of Representatives.
What did my Republican friends do after passing this inexplicably bad
bill? They got on a couple of buses from here at the Capitol and went
to a rose garden ceremony hosted by President Donald John Trump to
celebrate upending one-sixth of the American economy and taking away
healthcare from 23 million people.
That was certainly the Republicans' most recent mission-accomplished
moment, and it must have been some celebration because it will be
another 2 weeks before the majority would actually get around to
sending their healthcare bill to the Senate, due to the fact that they
were not sure if it complied with the Senate rules or, more
specifically, the Byrd rule in the U.S. Senate.
Then there is the second bucket of this plan, which involves the
Trump administration rolling back regulations. Should the work
associated with the second bucket proceed as it has with the other two,
then I am sure it, too, will be a disaster, benefitting the wealthy at
the expense of hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the Republicans' third bucket.
According to Senator Ted Cruz, this bucket is ``a sucker's bucket.''
Indeed, some like Senator Tom Cotton have referred to all of this
bucket talk as simply a bunch of political spin. Whatever it is, it is
an empty bucket.
The most recent bill the Republican majority has decided to dump in
this sucker's bucket is H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. Under current
law, premium assistance tax credits are available for eligible
individuals and families to subsidize the cost of health insurance.
Individuals are not eligible for these credits unless they are U.S.
citizens or are living in the country legally.
Currently, applicants have 90 days to provide documentation or
otherwise address any issues with citizenship and immigration status,
and are presumed eligible to enroll in marketplace coverage. If an
individual is unable to provide the necessary documentation, coverage
and financial assistance are terminated.
This provision ensures that individuals are not left in a position of
having to wait potentially months to be verified before they can afford
coverage, and it provides the proper guardrails to terminate assistance
if an individual is deemed ineligible. There is no evidence to support
the majority's claim that this process is not working.
H.R. 2581 would repeal this 90-day verification period, setting up an
unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals to receive the credits
they need to afford lifesaving healthcare. Republicans themselves
acknowledge that the verification process could take months, but,
nevertheless, they are bringing forth today's bill knowing full well
that it will make it harder for vulnerable people to access healthcare
when they need it most.
It would disproportionately hurt low-income Americans, especially
naturalized Americans from immigrant families since they can have a
harder time producing documentation needed to verify their citizenship.
But don't just take my word for it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens and
dozens of national, State, and local civil rights and advocacy groups
strongly opposing this legislation, such groups as the NAACP, the
Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of County and City
Health Officials, the American Friends Service Committee, the
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, the League
of United Latin American Citizens, the Institute of the Sisters of
Mercy, and I could go on, and on, and on, but in the interest of time,
I thank the Speaker for allowing it to be made a part of the Record.

June 12, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: As national, state, and local
organizations concerned about immigrant rights or access to
affordable health care, we are writing to strongly urge you
to VOTE NO on H.R. 2581, the ``Verify First'' Act. This bill
is an attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on
immigrants and people of color. It is not the ``common
sense'' taxpayer protection bill that its supporters would
have you believe.
H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for
both citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable
health insurance. It would strip away provisions that provide
for a person to obtain subsidies for enrollment in an
Affordable Care Act (or the contemplated American Health Care
Act) plan while they work with Department of Health and Human
Services to verify their U.S. citizenship or immigration
status. The people most impacted are U.S. citizens who were
born abroad or naturalized. The bill also affects many
immigrants, especially those newly arrived or certain victims
of domestic violence and trafficking survivors.
The fact is that when individuals are not able to
immediately verify their citizenship or immigration status on
an Affordable Care Act Marketplace, it begins an often months
long, strenuous process of sending in documents that must be
physically inspected. Health care assisters routinely say
these clients are the hardest cases they work on because the
process for verifying citizenship and immigration status is a
time-consuming exercise in dealing with inefficient
government processes.
Rather than protect American taxpayers, H.R. 2581 would
strip from American taxpayers important protections that are
needed to overcome deficiencies in federal government
databases. Immigrants who are not lawfully present are
categorically barred from enrollment in health insurance on
the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and for the subsidies
that make that insurance affordable. Moreover, safeguards
protecting taxpayers are already built into the ACA;
individuals whose citizenship or immigration status cannot be
verified already are required to pay back all of their
subsidies when they file their taxes and ``reconcile'' their
premium tax credits.
Supporters of this bill cite a sloppy Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report that
arrived at a made-up number of supposed ``fraud.'' It's just
not true. The committee assumed that every person who lost
coverage for failure to verify their citizenship and
immigration status was undocumented. In the experience of our
organizations and organizations we work with, this is false.
These reports describe the first year of the marketplaces,
and it is well documented that system outages and
understaffing, among other technical problems, contributed to
the federal Marketplace's failure to verify consumers' status
promptly. The Department of Health and Human Services
Inspector General reported in 2014 that a cause of the delay
in verification was the agency's lack of prioritization of
this issue.
Despite huge gains since then, problems still persist. The
Social Security database holding many citizens' information
may not reflect common changes, such as when a person marries
and changes their last name, or when someone naturalizes and
gains U.S. citizenship. People lose their coverage because
they receive notices in languages they cannot read.
Immigrants are required to submit documents multiple times,
or wait while the Department of Homeland Security finds paper
files, a result of deficiencies in their databases affecting
groups like asylum applicants and some survivors of domestic
violence. These are among the many issues consumers face.
Congress has already deprived undocumented immigrants from
the ability to buy coverage, even at full price, so they can
see a doctor when they are sick, but this bill would go a
step further to delay or put out of reach affordable health
insurance for many citizens and lawfully present immigrants.
Our organizations firmly believe that this would be
detrimental to the people we represent and to all of our
communities as a whole. We have seen that when health
insurance is unaffordable, people are effectively prevented
from obtaining access to the care they need to be healthy.
This bill is not just an attack on our health care system,
it is also an attack on immigrants and people of color, which
our organizations stand firmly against. In his statements
when introducing this bill, Rep. Lou Barletta focused the
bill as part of his effort to ``stop illegal immigration.''
Rep. Barletta has a long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric,
from trying to prevent immigrants from leasing a residence to
stating that they should be denied life-saving services in
hospital emergency rooms. This bill is simply a vehicle for
scapegoating immigrants and people of color and will keep
eligible people from accessing health care.

[[Page H4870]]

We the undersigned organizations urge you to vote NO on
H.R. 2581 and the continued assault on immigrants and the
health of our communities.
Sincerely,

National

Advocates for Youth; African American Ministers in Action;
American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Friends
Service Committee; American Intercession; American Society on
Aging; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Asian
Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Asian Pacific Institute
on Gender-Based Violence; Asian Pacific Partners for
Empowerment, Advocacy & Leadership (APPEAL); Association of
Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO);
Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Alliance for Just
Immigration; Breast Cancer Action; Center for Law and Social
Policy (CLASP); Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Child
Welfare League of America; Children's Advocacy Institute;
Children's Defense Fund; Church World Service (CWS).
Coalition on Human Needs; Columbian Center for Advocacy and
Outreach; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good
Shepherd, US Provinces; Conscious Talk Radio; Detention Watch
Network; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund;
Dominican Sisters; Dominicans of Sinsinawa; Family Equality
Council; Farmworker Justice; First Focus Campaign for
Children; Food Research & Action Center; Franciscan Sisters
of the Poor IJPC; Friends Committee on National Legislation;
Generations Inc.; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT
Equality; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Indivisible;
Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Interfaith
Worker Justice.
Irish Apostolate USA; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging;
Justice, Peace and Reconciliation Commission, Priests of the
Sacred Heart, US Province; Lambda Legal; Leadership Team of
the Felician Sisters of North America; League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC); Medical Mission Sisters; Mi
Familia Vota; MomsRising; NAACP; NAPAFASA; National Advocacy
Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Asian
Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of
County and City Health Officials; National Association of
Social Workers; National Black Justice Coalition; National
Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Asian
Pacific Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Churches.
National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Education
Association; National Employment Law Project; National Health
Law Program; National Hispanic Medical Association; National
Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;
National Justice for Our Neighbors; National Latina Institute
for Reproductive Health; National Network of Abortion Funds;
National Organization for Women; National Women's Health
Network; Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility
of United Church of Christ; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social
Justice; NMAC; OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates; Our
Revolution; Peace and Justice Office of the Congregation of
Notre Dame; Physicians for Reproductive Health; PICO
National.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poor People's
Economic Human Rights Campaign; Prevention Institute; Project
Inform; Racine Dominicans; Raising Women's Voices for the
Health Care We Need; Refuge Ministries; Sargent Shriver
National Center on Poverty Law; Service Employees
International Union; Sisters of Charity; Sisters of Charity
of Nazareth; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute
Justice Team; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC);
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; United
Sikhs; United We Dream; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, U.S.
Province; We Belong Together; API Wellness.

State and Local

Academy of Medical & Public Health Services; Advocates for
Children and Youth; AgeOptions; Almost Home, Inc.; Anti-
Hunger & Nutrition Coalition; Arkansas Advocates for Children
and Families; Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing;
Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles; Asian
Community Alliance--Cincinnati OH; Asian Law Alliance; Asian
Services In Action, Inc.; Baltimore Jewish Council;
California Health Professional Student Alliance; California
Immigrant Policy Center; California Latinas for Reproductive
Justice (CLRJ); California OneCare; California Pan-Ethnic
Health Network; California Partnership; California Physicians
Alliance; CASA.
Center for Southeast Asians; Chicago Hispanic Health
Coalition; Child Care Resources of Rockland; Children Now;
Children's Defense Fund--CA; Chinatown Service Center;
Chinese-American Planning Council; Coalition for Humane
Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Collaborative Center for Justice;
Colorado Center on Law and Policy; Colorado Center on Law and
Policy; Columbia Legal Services; Community Health Councils;
D.C. Hunger Solutions; DuPage Federation on Human Services
Reform; Empower Missouri; Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to
End Poverty in Contra Costa; Erie Benedictines for Peace;
Esperanza Health Centers; EverThrive Illinois; Farmworker
Association of Florida.
Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC); Give for a Smile;
Greater Kansas City Coalition to End Homelessness; Having Our
Say Coalition; Health Access California; Health Care for
All--WA; Health Law Advocates; Healthy House Within A MATCH
Coalition; Hmong Ohio of Tomorrow; Hunger Action Los Angeles;
IHM Sisters, Immaculata, PA; IL Hunger Coalition; Illinois
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Indivisible
Mountain Home, Idaho; Interfaith Movement for Human
Integrity; IRIS--Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services;
Islamic Civic Engagement Project; Jewish Family & Children's
Service; Kansas Appleseed; Kentucky Equal Justice Center;
Korean Community Services of Metropolitan NY; La Fe Policy
Research and Education Center.
La Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program; Legal Council for
Health Justice; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Maine
Consumers for Affordable Health Care; Make the Road New York;
Maryland CASH Campaign; Maryland Hunger Solutions;
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
(MIRA); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Maternal and
Child Health Access; Maternity Care Coalition; National
Association of Social Workers, CT Chapter; National Tongan
American Society; Nationalities Service Center; NC Child; New
Mexico Center on Law and Poverty; New York Immigration
Coalition; New York Legal Assistance Group; NICOS Chinese
Health Coalition; NJ State Industrial Union Council; NOELA
Community Health Center; Northern NJ Chapter, National
Organization for Women.
Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project; Office of the Health Care Advocate at Vermont Legal
Aid; OneAmerica; Pacific Islander Health Partnership; Pitkin
County Human Services; Public Justice Center; Puget Sound
Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Rainbow Center;
Reformed Church of Highland Park; RESULTS--Santa Fe (NM);
Salaam Cleveland; Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education
Network (SIREN); Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word,
Houston; Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, NY; Sisters of
the Most Precious Blood; Social Justice Committee St. Patrick
Church; South Asian Network; Southwest Women's Law Center;
St. Francis St Vincent de Paul Society; Tennessee Justice
Center; Thai Health And Information Service.
The Children's Partnership; The Latino Health Insurance
Program, Inc.; Turning Points; United Way Bay Area; URI
Feinstein Center for a Hunger Free America; Vermont
Affordable Housing Coalition; Virginia Poverty Law Center;
Voices for Vermont's Children; Voz Hispana Cambia
Comunitario; Washington Community Action Network; Washington
Healthcare Access Alliance; Washington State Labor Council,
AFL-CIO; West Chester Food Cupboard; West Side Campaign
Against Hunger; Westlake Chinese Culture Association;
Wisconsin Council of Churches; Wisconsin Faith Voices for
Justice; Women's Action Movement Washtenaw County, MI;
Worksite Wellness LA; Xaverian Brothers; Young Women United.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, ``This bill,'' that letter says, ``is an
attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on immigrants and people
of color.''
``H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for both
citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable health
insurance.''
If this is what we are in store for with the Republican's third
bucket, then it is even worse than a sucker's bucket. It is callous,
and it is cruel, and someone described the Vice Presidency once many
years ago as a warm bucket of spit.
As my colleague, Congressman Richard Neal, said last night at the
Rules Committee, bad process leads to bad product. I agree with Mr.
Neal, and this bill is a perfect example of his salient insight. The
provisions in this legislation are contingent upon enactment of the
American Health Care Act.
If the American Health Care Act is enacted, this bill would not go
into effect. That means we are now considering legislation amending a
bill that we have already sent to the Senate, and that the Senate has
made clear it has no intention of taking up.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado
as well.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. I
helped introduce this legislation with my good friend and colleague,
Mr. Barletta from Pennsylvania, to ensure illegal immigrants are not
able to use healthcare tax credits to purchase health insurance.
Under ObamaCare, the Federal Government paid these tax credits up
front on a temporary basis to people before verifying their immigration
status. This created a pay-and-chase system where the Federal
Government would seek repayment only after it found it had paid out
benefits to an illegal immigrant.

[[Page H4871]]

This bill puts an end to this taxpayer abuse by requiring the Social
Security Administration, or the Department of Homeland Security, to
verify the immigration status of every tax credit applicant before the
Treasury Department issues a credit.
Texans and hardworking taxpayers around the country already struggle
to pay for their healthcare. Their hard-earned dollars should not be
used to foot the bill for those who broke the law to come here. My
constituents in Texas and American taxpayers deserve better.
I want to thank Congressman Barletta for his dedication and continued
leadership on this issue, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise only to express my real disappointment in the way that this
bill has been brought to the floor. Had the majority not insisted on a
closed rule, preventing the House from voting on any and all amendments
to repair and improve S. 1094, I would have offered an amendment to
ensure that it applies in a way that respects the due process rights of
Federal workers, and that it would apply only to collective bargaining
agreements ratified on or after enactment.
I support the goal of improving accountability at the VA, but I want
to make sure it is not done in a way that prejudices and undermines the
collective bargaining rights and the due process rights of the
workforce.
There are real problems at the VA now, we know. There are 45- to
49,000 vacancies there. There is bureaucratic dysfunction in a lot of
places, and all that this bill would do is to change the evidentiary
standard of proof from the preponderance of the evidence to substantial
evidence in leveling sanctions and discipline against employees.
That is a tiny detail. It is an irrelevant distraction from the
massive problems that actually are facing the VA today. So we should be
filling these vacancies. We should be improving the function of the VA,
but we should not use this or that problem as an excuse to undermine
the due process rights of the workforce. That sets a terrible example
for the Federal workforce, generally, and it does nothing to repair the
underlying problems and inadequacies that are taking place at the VA.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to my friend from Florida's statement about the second
piece of legislation that we are dealing with in this rule, I believe
it is our responsibility to the American taxpayer, and we are
fulfilling that responsibility. We are expected to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. This bill ensures that the government only disburses
premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, or under the
American Health Care Act, to those individuals who are eligible for
those tax credits.
Under the ACA, an individual who is not lawfully present in the
United States is ineligible from receiving a premium credit.
Unfortunately, the ACA also allows the government to hand out the tax
credit first and verify later.
This pay-and-chase scheme means taxpayer money is flowing out the
door to people who don't meet the requirements for premium tax credits,
and much of these funds may not be recouped. In fact, under the ACA,
over half a million people who were ineligible for coverage and tax
credits received credits.
H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act, requires the Secretary of the
Treasury to ensure that any department disbursing payments have first
verified the recipient's legal presence with information like Social
Security numbers. By requiring this verification, we can confirm that,
under both the ACA and AHCA, those who receive credits deserve credits.
With that confirmation, we will ensure that these laws are used as
they were intended; that the wishes of the American taxpayer are
followed. I urge Members to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Donald John Trump issued an executive
order placing a hiring freeze on Federal civilian employees across the
executive branch. This executive order, like many of the executive
orders this President has issued, failed to take into account the
effects it could have on our most vulnerable communities.
Veterans make up one-third of all Federal workers. I am very pleased
that one is in my office. She is probably smiling because sometimes
Charity probably doesn't think I even know that she is in the office.
But she is there and does incredible work.
The Department of Veterans Affairs--a severely understaffed agency
serving those veterans--cannot afford a hiring freeze.
This week, Republicans are bringing to the floor bills they claim
would improve veterans' lives. If the President and my Republican
colleagues are truly committed to our veterans, then they should ensure
that reckless hiring freezes do not harm them in the future.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Schrader's bill,
H.R. 696, which would prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record the text
of my amendment, 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, what we have here today is a rule with one
bill that really was worked on in a bipartisan manner--sort of like
regular order like we were promised by the Speaker at the outset of
this session of Congress--and another bill, which is just more of the
same from this majority: creating problems where none existed before.
The fact remains that the Republicans' healthcare bill and overall
bucket strategy is a disaster for the American people, and no amount of
Rose Garden backslapping is going to change that fact.
Under the Republican plan, 23 million Americans will be kicked off of
their health insurance and $800 billion will be cut from Medicaid.
Footnote right there, we hear that the Senate is taking up something.
We don't know where and who is doing the taking up, but what I read
today is that they are considering a glide path of some kind to cut
Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, cutting Medicaid hurts poor people. Whether you glide it
or run it over them, either way you look at it, it hurts them, and we
need to pay attention to that, particularly if we are doing it to
provide for those of us that are better off in our society.
Seventy-five billion dollars will be cut from Medicare, insurance
premiums would increase for people ages 60 to 64 by more than $3,000 a
year, and protections for those with preexisting conditions will be
eliminated.
I read about a 63-year-old lady who said that all of her conditions
are preexisting and she can't afford insurance. H.R. 2581 only adds to
this pain by setting up an unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals
to get access to healthcare.
But not to worry, under the Republican plan, the 400 highest income
families would ultimately get tax cuts averaging around $7 million a
year, and that information comes from the Ways and Means Committee's
fact sheet.
Mr. Speaker, I and others here very frequently have pointed out that
what the Republicans want to do is to cut benefits for poor people--the
most vulnerable in our society--and to provide for the better-off tax
cuts--those people in our society who least need them.
It occurs to me that if we were to have an opportunity to ask the 400
wealthiest families in this country whether or not they really need a
tax cut, my belief, based on the four billionaires that I have known
personally--two are deceased now--but in my conversations with all of
them, their position was that they didn't need a cut. To the man, each
one of them said that, if they were to receive tax cuts, they would
prefer that they go to education, particularly education for
kindergartners and prekindergartners.

[[Page H4872]]

If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their
base--a group of people, mind you, who are most certainly
disadvantaged--one day they are going to wake up and recognize that
much of what we are doing here, even though they support it, many of
the persons who are doing it, they, too, are caught up in this downward
spiral that is involving healthcare in this country, the game that we
are playing.
If we are willing to work in a serious manner to address the issues
in our healthcare system, then I know that Democrats are ready to work
with Republicans. But whatever is going on in the other body, I assure
you, no Democrats in the other body are involved in.
Last night I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
whether or not he knew what this bill looked like, and his answer was
that he did not.
I also said what I repeat here, that people are hurting in this
country. Whether it is ObamaCare that the Republicans, I believe, are
going to find that it is going to be hard to fix, or whether it is the
Affordable Care Act that is in some phantom hole over in the other
body, somehow or another, my friends on the other side are going to be
held accountable for all of what is necessary to be done. The only way
that is sensible--and I believe that every American is imploring us to
undertake--is to sit down together.
I cannot believe that the 435 people plus 6 here in the House of
Representatives and the 100 United States Senators do not have the
ability to do all of the things that are necessary in order for
Americans to receive adequate healthcare and to lead with protecting
the most vulnerable in our society.
It is ridiculous to talk about cutting Medicaid when more than 60
percent of the people on Medicaid are seniors that are in nursing
homes.

What are we going to say to those families? How are we going to
address them when it comes to the reality that they are confronted with
while we are up here jaw jacking back and forth about whether or not it
is ObamaCare or whether or not it is the Affordable Care Act that we
can't seem to find.
Somewhere along the lines, we need to sit down and work together.
Failure to do so is to our own peril and to the peril of the citizens
of this great country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing two important bills. One of them
fulfills the congressional duty to steward taxpayer dollars well. We
shouldn't be handing out tax credits to people without first checking
their eligibility for their tax credits. This is common sense.
H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act, will require verification of legal
presence in this country before someone can receive a tax credit. It is
only fair to the American people that we pass this legislation.
The other bill in this rule, S. 1094, protects our veterans from
harm. We all have a commitment to repaying the men and women who have
served this Nation in the military. These brave individuals have put
much on the line and sacrificed so much time and opportunity. They
deserve the best healthcare.
This legislation holds the VA accountable. We need to empower the VA
Secretary to quickly fire employees who put our veterans in danger. We
also need the VA to report to Congress so that the legislative branch
can fulfill its oversight duties.
I thank the sponsors of these important bills--Senator Rubio for S.
1094 and Representative Barletta for H.R. 2581.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 378 Offered by Mr. Hastings

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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.
696) to prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the
Department of Veterans Affairs. 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 Oversight and Government Reform.
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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 696.

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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). 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 adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

[[Page H4873]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 189, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 302]

YEAS--229

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 (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
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
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 (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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--189

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 (CT)
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.
Jones
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
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
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
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
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--12

Brooks (AL)
Cummings
Granger
Griffith
Higgins (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Lowenthal
McGovern
Napolitano
Pelosi
Taylor
Weber (TX)

{time} 1321

Mses. JAYAPAL and WILSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 190, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 303]

AYES--229

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 (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
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
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 (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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--190

[[Page H4874]]

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
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
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
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--11

Brooks (AL)
Cummings
Granger
Griffith
Higgins (LA)
Huizenga
Johnson, Sam
Napolitano
Pelosi
Taylor
Weber (TX)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1327

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 303.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a missed vote due
to a meeting with constituents on the House steps. Had I been present
for rollcall vote No. 303, H. Res. 378, The Rule providing for
consideration of the bill H.R. 2581--Verify First Act and S. 1094--
Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
302 and No. 303 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of both
H.R. 2581 and S. 1094. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 378--
Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2581--Verify First Act
and S. 1094--Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to report my absence
on the vote of the H. Res. 378, the combined rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2581 and S. 1094, as well as the vote on the
previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 302 (Previous Question on H. Res. 378), and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 303 (Adoption of H. Res. 378).

____________________