[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5193-H5201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1215, PROTECTING ACCESS TO CARE ACT
OF 2017
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 382
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 1215) to improve patient access to health care
services and provide improved medical care by reducing the
excessive burden the liability system places on the health
care delivery system. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-10. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, 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 may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
House Resolution 382 will ultimately drive down healthcare costs and
make care more affordable to millions of Americans across the country.
In 2017, we have had a conversation in America about how health
insurance costs have drastically increased in the past 7 years. We need
to fix our health insurance market, a task that House Members and
Senators have been working hard on for the past few months, but if we
are truly going to address out-of-control health insurance costs, we
need to start looking at the cost of supplying care itself. That is
where H.R. 1215, the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, plays a
vital role. H.R. 1215 focuses on lowering the cost of care by placing
checks and balances on the excessive and frivolous lawsuits faced by
doctors and other healthcare providers.
A GAO report found that rising litigation awards are responsible for
skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. Unfortunately,
these premium costs are passed on to the patient and, in many cases,
are passed on to American taxpayers. The reforms in H.R. 1215 will make
care more affordable for patients and will improve access to care,
especially for rural America.
Over time, unending and excessive lawsuits have limited the amount of
doctors nationwide, particularly in States that have not instituted
their own reforms. With a string of frivolous lawsuits levied against
our medical community, many Americans who would become doctors and
practice in certain parts of the Nation simply decided against it.
The reforms in H.R. 1215 will especially help rural and underserved
urban communities, where quality healthcare can be difficult to access.
Incentivizing medical professionals to serve in communities that might
otherwise be overlooked should be one goal of our healthcare reform
efforts.
I know the healthcare challenges faced by so many in eastern
Colorado, where access to quality care is sometimes limited. We need
doctors who are willing to invest in these communities, but we need to
empower these doctors by freeing them of frivolous and excessive
lawsuits.
Beyond just access to care, the growth of frivolous malpractice
lawsuits has led to a change in the way care is provided. Many
providers are forced to practice defensive medicine. In doing so,
doctors order unnecessary, excessive diagnostics not because the
patient needs them, but because the doctor attempts to avoid a
frivolous lawsuit. The practice of defensive medicine increases costs
for the patient without providing any discernible benefit.
The legislation we are considering is key to increasing the
affordability of care and the access to care for all Americans.
This bill is supported by the American Hospital Association and the
American Academy of Family Physicians. The American Medical Association
has also voiced their support.
But let me be clear: The bill before the House today does not limit
access to justice for legitimately wronged or injured patients. It does
not hamper a wronged patient from recovering damages for their
injuries.
The bill simply imposes a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, a
provision that has worked well in California, where this legislation
has already been successfully implemented and modeled for decades. But
there is no cap on economic damages that a patient may incur in a
malpractice situation, and the bill's cap does not preempt any State
law that otherwise caps any form of damages at amounts either higher or
lower than the cap in H.R. 1215.
The legislation also limits the contingency fees that lawyers can
charge when bringing a malpractice case on behalf of a client. In other
words, we don't want to incentivize lawyers to push forward with
illegitimate cases. We want patients who have been wronged to have
access to a fair trial, where they walk home with the winnings in their
own pocket, not their lawyer's.
H.R. 1215 builds on the successes of medical malpractice reforms in
States like California and Texas. In these States, similar laws have
increased access to affordable medical care. They have created an
environment where doctors can focus on helping patients rather than
spending time in endless litigation and dealing with threats from the
trial bar.
The legislation before us, while creating a uniform national playing
field, protects State laws by allowing flexible reforms to be used at
the discretion of States. State courts will still hear medical lawsuits
as always.
The reforms at hand today deal with care that was provided or
subsidized by the Federal Government, including through a tax benefit.
[[Page H5194]]
We must pass this legislation for the American taxpayer. The taxpayer
doesn't deserve to have their hard-earned dollars simply end up in the
pockets of trial lawyers due to frivolous lawsuits. That is why H.R.
1215 is a critically needed reform.
Unlimited and opportunistic lawsuits help no one except trial
lawyers. Consequently, our doctors have to increase their costs and
practice expensive defensive medicine, costing patients and taxpayers.
And when our physicians are impacted, so are we.
Trial lawyers too often stand between patients and their doctors.
With the looming threat of excessive, unending lawsuits, healthcare
providers have to worry more about the trial lawyer at their door than
the patient in their office. H.R. 1215 places important limits on these
lawsuits so that the truly wronged are compensated without enriching
trial lawyers at the same time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today, one that
provides for consideration of the Protecting Access to Care Act. This
bill would significantly alter how families and patients that are
injured as a result of medical error are able to hold healthcare
providers, facilities, or device makers accountable to make sure that
that same thing doesn't happen to other people.
This bill decreases patient safety. It undermines the ability of
people who are wrongfully injured by medical malpractice or faulty
medical devices to be compensated for their injuries, and it violates
the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, the rights reserved to the
States.
Before I turn to the merits, or lack thereof, of this bill, I want to
discuss the process under which this bill came to the floor.
The Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill, had
zero hearings on this legislation, heard from zero experts, and went
straight to markup. Despite the overwhelming opposition to this
legislation, the Judiciary Committee did not want to hear from groups
like the American Bar Association, Patient Safety America, the National
Disability Rights Network, or the National Protection Alliance.
When I see the American Bar Association, who the committee refused to
hear from--I know my colleague from Colorado is an attorney. I just
want to inquire of my colleague from Colorado if he is a member of the
American Bar Association, and I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BUCK. Proudly, no.
Mr. POLIS. Okay. Well, that is the association which many attorneys,
excepting, of course, my friend from Colorado, are a member of.
The supporters of this bill point to its consideration in previous
Congresses for hearings, but we have over 50 new Members who didn't
hear a word about this bill from any experts before it was rushed to
the floor.
We are considering this bill under a very restrictive rule. That
means there were 24 amendments filed. This rule only allows the House
to debate and vote on five of them. That means 19 of them, amendments
offered by Democrats and Republicans, were simply just tossed out in
the Rules Committee. That is what this rule does.
If this rule were to pass, it would mean that the efforts of 19
Members to offer ideas to improve healthcare wouldn't even be allowed
to be debated or voted upon here on the floor of this House. It is no
coincidence that eight amendments filed by Democrats, and not one
Democratic amendment was made in order. Only 5 out of 24 ideas from
Democrats and Republicans were made in order.
One amendment filed by my colleague, Representative Jackson Lee,
would have provided an exception to the bill for any medical-related
injury to a child, which seems like common sense. At least have a
debate about it. If people disagree, let them disagree. Let's have a
vote.
This rule continues this very closed process, where Democrats and
Republicans are shut out of participating in the bills that appear
fully formed without the opportunity for us to represent our districts
and offer amendments to improve and make these bills better, to reduce
costs, to improve the quality of care.
What I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is: Where is the open process promised by
Speaker Ryan? This Congress hasn't even considered a single piece of
legislation under an open rule, and we have had many, many bills
brought to the floor under closed rules and without any committee
hearings. But, you know, I am beginning to not be surprised so much
anymore because secretiveness seems to be the standard that Republicans
are setting in this Congress.
How the Republicans have handled their healthcare bill from start
through now is a perfect example of the closed-door, secretive process
that has become, tragically, the standard operating procedure for this
Congress.
The Republican healthcare bill will increase healthcare costs,
provide less coverage--22 million fewer people will be covered--
increase costs for those who are lucky enough to keep their current
coverage, and reduce access to healthcare for the American people.
It puts a burden on small businesses, on the middle class, on rural
healthcare providers, while handing hundreds of billions of dollars in
tax breaks to big corporations and special interests.
TrumpCare is a billionaire's tax cut disguised as a healthcare bill,
and it will be one of the largest transfers of wealth from the middle
class and the working families to the top 1 percent of Americans.
Effectively, it is removing benefits from people in rural counties and
cities across our country and giving those tax cuts mostly to people in
New York and Hollywood. That is what Republicans are delivering with
this bill.
When the American people were finally given the chance to see the
Senate's healthcare legislation, the American people overwhelmingly
rejected it. Only 16 percent of the American people approve of the
plan. Democrats oppose it; Republicans oppose it; independents oppose
it.
The Congressional Budget Office's recent score of the bill says that
coverage will significantly decrease under this bill and that the costs
of deductibles for patients will go up. Patients will have to spend
more out of pocket, those that are lucky enough to even have insurance
after this cruel bill.
But there is still time to stop it, and I call upon my colleagues to
prevent this bill from moving forward.
The bill that Republicans are trying to ram through Congress is not
truly meant to make improvements to our healthcare system but to take
money away from the middle class and working families and put it into
the pockets of a very few people who benefit from the tax cuts under
this bill: for people making millions of dollars a year.
This bill makes it harder for middle-income families and for low-
income families to access quality, affordable healthcare, makes it
harder for individuals who have preexisting conditions or have genetic
disorders or long-term diseases from accessing lifesaving medical
attention, and cuts critical healthcare services for disabled children
in schools that many of our school districts rely on. And they want to
do this all with a closed process.
I offered three amendments to improve healthcare in our Education and
the Workforce Committee. All were defeated on a partisan vote.
{time} 1245
Every Republican voted not to allow those. No Democrat, as far as I
know--certainly not me--has been invited to present our ideas to
Republican leadership or President Trump.
Democrats have lots of ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act. I am
sure many Republicans do, too. Those ideas are not reflected whatsoever
in this bill or in the closed process that prohibits Republicans and
Democrats from even offering our suggestions to improve this bill.
So, here we are, debating another piece of healthcare legislation
that did not go through an open process. Democrats were shut out of the
amendment process completely.
This bill would make it more difficult for victims of medical
malpractice to seek or receive compensation for their injuries. It is
inconsistent with the 10th Amendment, which reserves these rights to
the States that are not enumerated in the
[[Page H5195]]
Constitution, and unlike the Democrats' approach to medical malpractice
reform in the Affordable Care Act, which provided funding for pilot
programs in the States to reduce the risk of medical malpractice
liability consistent with the 10th Amendment. Many constitutional
experts--I would add, many conservative constitutional experts--believe
that this approach is unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment.
We have learned that this bill does not actually protect access to
healthcare but, instead, undermines a State-based tort system, making
it more difficult for patients to be compensated from bad actors.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 60
national and State organizations opposed to H.R. 1215.
June 12, 2017.
Re Groups Urge You to Vote NO on H.R. 1215.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned
consumer, health, labor, legal and public interest groups
strongly oppose H.R. 1215: The ``Protecting Access to Care
Act of 2017.'' This bill would limit the legal rights of
injured patients and families of those killed by negligent
health care. The bill's sweeping scope covers not only cases
involving medical malpractice, but also cases involving
unsafe drugs and nursing home abuse and neglect.
Even if H.R. 1215 applied only to doctors and hospitals,
recent studies clearly establish that its provisions would
lead to more deaths and injuries, and increased health care
costs due to a ``broad relaxation of care.'' Add to this
nursing home and pharmaceutical industry liability
limitations, significantly weakening incentives for these
industries to act safely, and untold numbers of additional
death, injuries and costs are inevitable, and unacceptable.
The latest statistics show that medical errors, most of
which are preventable, are the third leading cause of death
in America. This intolerable situation is perhaps all the
more shocking because we already know about how to fix much
of this problem. Congress should focus on improving patient
safety and reducing deaths and injuries, not insulating
negligent providers from accountability, harming patients and
saddling taxpayers with the cost, as H.R. 1215 would do.
For example, this bill would establish a permanent across-
the-board $250,000 ``cap'' on compensation for ``non-economic
damages'' in medical malpractice cases. Such caps are unfair
and discriminatory. For example, University of Buffalo Law
Professor Lucinda Finley has written, ``certain injuries that
happen primarily to women are compensated predominantly or
almost exclusively through noneconomic loss damages. These
injuries include sexual or reproductive harm, pregnancy loss,
and sexual assault injuries.'' Also, ``[J]uries consistently
award women more in noneconomic loss damages than men . . .
[A]ny cap on noneconomic loss damages will deprive women of a
much greater proportion and amount of a jury award than men.
Noneconomic loss damage caps therefore amount to a form of
discrimination against women and contribute to unequal access
to justice or fair compensation for women.''
Other provisions in H.R. 1215 are just as problematic. The
proposed federal statute of limitations, more restrictive
than a majority of state laws, lacks complete logic from a
deficit reduction angle since its only impact would be to cut
off meritorious claims, forcing patients to turn to the
government for care. The bill would repeal joint and several
liability even though the Congressional Budget Office says
this could increase, not lower, costs.
H.R. 1215 would overturn traditional state common law and
would be an unprecedented interference with the work of state
court judges and juries in civil cases. Its one-way
preemption of state law provisions that protect patients
(there are some exceptions) makes clear that the intent of
this legislation is not to make laws uniform in the 50
states. Rather, it is a carefully crafted bill to provide
relief and protections for the insurance, medical and drug
industries, at the expense of patient safety. We urge you to
oppose H.R. 1215: The ``Protecting Access to Care Act of
2017.'' Thank you.
Very sincerely,
NATIONAL GROUPS
AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; Aging
Life Care Association; Alliance for Justice; Alliance for
Retired Americans; American Association for Justice; American
Association of Directors of Nursing Services; American
Association of Nurse Assessment Coordination; Annie Appleseed
Project; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Brain Injury
Association of America; Center for Independence; Center for
Justice & Democracy; Center for Medicare Advocacy;
Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation; Communication Workers of
America; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America;
Consumer Watchdog.
Daily Kos; Families for Better Care; Gerontological
Advanced Practice Nurses Association; Hartford Institute for
Geriatric Nursing; Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings;
Justice in Aging; Leahslegacy.org; Long Term Care Community
Coalition; Mothers Against Medical Error; NALLTCO, National
Association of Local Long Term Care Ombudsman; National
Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of
Directors of Nursing Administration in Long Term Care;
National Center for Health Research (NCHR); National Consumer
Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Consumers League;
National Disability Rights Network; National Education
Association.
National Gerontological Nursing Association; National
Medical Malpractice Advocacy Association; National Women's
Health Network; Nursing Home Victim Coalition, Inc.; Our
Mother's Voice; Patient Safety America; Public Citizen;
Public Justice; Public Justice Center; Public Law Center;
Quinolone Vigilance Foundation; The Empowered Patient
Coalition; The Impact Fund; United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America International
Union; United Spinal Association; Women's Institute for a
Secure Retirement (WISER).
STATE GROUPS
Arkansas State Independent Living Council; California
Advocates for Nursing Home Reform; Center for Advocacy for
the Rights & Interests of the Elderly (PA); Chatham Advisory
Committee for Long Term Care Adult Care Homes and Family Care
Homes (NC); Citizen Action/Illinois; Connecticut Center for
Patient Safety; Disability Rights Center of Kansas; Elder
Justice Committee of Metro Justice of Rochester (NY); Friends
of Residents in Long Term Care (NC); Greater Boston Legal
Services, on behalf of our clients (MA); Idaho Federation of
Families for Children's Mental Health; InterHab, Inc. (KS).
Iowa Statewide Independence Living Council (SILC); Kansas
ADAPT; Kansas Advocates for Better Care; LTC Ombudsman
Services of San Luis Obispo County (CA); Massachusetts
Advocates for Nursing Home Reform; Michigan Long Term Care
Ombudsman Program; Montana Independent Living Project, Inc.;
NYPIRG; PULSE of Colorado; Residential Facilities Advisory
Committee, State of Oregon; Rhode Island Long Term Care
Ombudsman Office; Texas Watch; Voices for Quality Care (LTC)
(MD & DC); Washington Advocates for Patient Safety;
Washington Civil & Disability Advocate; WISE & Health Aging
(CA).
Mr. POLIS. Some of the groups are the Gerontological Advanced
Practice Nurses Association, Justice in Aging, Long Term Care Community
Coalition, National Education Association, National Consumers League,
National Disability Rights Network, Public Citizen, Public Justice, and
many, many other great organizations.
I hope my friend from Colorado is a member of at least two or three
of these wonderful organizations. I will furnish the entire list to
him.
This bill preempts State tort law that has been developed over the
last 200 years and is contrary to the 10th Amendment of our
Constitution. It imposes an arbitrary cap on the amount of noneconomic
damages a victim can collect under a Federal law coopting the ability
of States to do their own medical malpractice laws and hamstringing
them with regard to the reforms that they can undertake.
In fact, capping damages also increases taxpayer spending. According
to a joint study by Northwestern University and the University of
Illinois, they found that capping economic damages actually increases
Medicare part B spending.
I would point out another horrible feature of the cruel Republican
healthcare bill is that it guts the Medicare trust fund and would lead
to Medicare becoming insolvent sooner rather than later by draining the
Medicare trust fund of over $100 billion. That is another aspect of
this bill.
No wonder they didn't want us to see it, Mr. Speaker. No wonder they
kept it in a locked closet from even Republicans who were allegedly
writing it, like Ken Buck and my friend, Senator Gardner, who was on
the committee writing it and who later said he hadn't seen it. No
wonder it was hidden, when you find out it actually leads to Medicare
insolvency sooner, when you find that it throws 22 million people off
the insurance that they already have, when you find out it raises rates
for those who are lucky enough to maintain their insurance, when you
find it takes money out of our schools, when you find that it risks
throwing our elderly out of their nursing homes who rely on Medicaid.
This bill is a symptom of a problem. I am not a doctor; my friend
from Colorado is not a doctor; but when I ask my doctor what you do
when there are
[[Page H5196]]
symptoms, it is treat the underlying cause.
Let's do that. This bill doesn't do that. This Republican Senate bill
that throws people off insurance doesn't do that. Let's begin a process
where we get ideas from Democrats and Republicans to work together to
reduce costs in healthcare, to expand coverage in healthcare, and to
improve the quality of healthcare for American families.
This bill is not focused on protecting patients. It increases the
risk to patients. It drains Medicare of additional money. This bill
will not reduce costs to patients. In fact, no healthcare bill being
debated in Congress right now actually improves patient care or reduces
costs to patients.
Those should be two pillars, two goals of healthcare reform: Can we
reduce costs, and can we improve patient care?
This bill risks making patient care worse in an unconstitutional way.
The Senate bill actually will increase costs to patients, increase
deductibles, make more people lose their insurance, make you pay more
for insurance you already have if you are one of the people who is
lucky enough not to lose it under the cruel Republican bill.
Instead of politicizing and polarizing access to healthcare--
literally a life-and-death issue for American families--let's work
together to find solutions that reduce costs, increase coverage, and
improve care. The Senate Republican healthcare bill meets none of those
three critical criteria that the American people demand in healthcare
reform: reducing costs, increasing coverage, and improving the quality
of care for ourselves and for our loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Colorado did not mean to insult me
when he referred to me as a lawyer, but I want to make a quick
distinction.
I spent 25 years as a prosecutor, not a lawyer. Prosecutors put
people in prison and make the world safe for all of us; lawyers get
people out of prison and make the world less safe for all of us. I want
to make that distinction.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUCK. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Prosecutors are lawyers as well. So I just wanted to be
clear that it is not an insult. Being an attorney is a fine profession.
There are some attorneys on both sides, both defending as well
prosecuting criminals, but they are both attorneys. I just wanted to
clarify that.
Mr. BUCK. Reclaiming my time, do not tell prosecutors that they are
merely lawyers. To be a prosecutor is a higher standard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am not an attorney either, Mr. Speaker. I am a physician. As a
matter of fact, I am an obstetrician. I think, of all the professions
impacted by malpractice issues, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, obstetricians
have been the most impacted.
I remember going back as a medical student and trying to figure out
what type of doctor I wanted to become. My wife and I were blessed
somewhere in there to have our first child. I remember when that little
girl was given to me and I heard her cry, it was maybe the greatest
single moment of my life.
As a young medical student, I was very impressed and said: That is
what I want to do. I want to bring babies into the world and have that
moment when I get to give a baby to a mom and she looks at that baby
and it is just a very special moment. It is just the most agape love
I have ever seen, a mom with a perfect heart towards that little baby.
I wanted to do that.
So I started telling my professors I wanted to be an obstetrician.
Every professor I met said: Don't do it. You are going to get sued.
Malpractice prices are screaming. You are not going to like that job
anymore. No one wants to go into obstetrics.
Well, guess what? My professors were right. I did it anyway.
The average obstetrician gets sued between three and four times in
their career. Malpractice remains the biggest deterrent of physicians
choosing to go into obstetrics. The average obstetrician has to spend 2
to 3 months every year just to pay for their malpractice insurance.
I am very blessed. Over 20 years ago, Kansas undertook similar tort
reform as this, and our malpractice costs have stabilized. My
malpractice insurance was pretty much the same 20 years after we
enacted the legislation to curb some of these costs.
I think it will be true for me to say that my friends that are
obstetricians in other States without malpractice tort reform, their
premiums are often three times higher than ours in Kansas. We have seen
this work very, very well in Kansas. The good news is that this
legislation will not impact any of that work as well.
I very much am in favor of this malpractice tort reform and how it is
going to impact healthcare. I predict that this will help lower premium
costs some 3 to 4 percent when enacted.
Malpractice is a huge cost of the current cost of healthcare. This is
a first step of many that Republicans are encouraging or want to
implement to start lowering those costs of premiums.
Small Business Association members were here in D.C. just 2 months
ago. When they walked out of that meeting, I was expecting them to come
back and tell me their concerns were mostly regulatory concerns, but
their number one concern was the cost of healthcare premiums.
This is a small step. If we can lower their healthcare costs 3 to 4
percent, this is a great, great opportunity for us to help them out.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I encourage Members on both
sides of the aisle to support this bill. It should be bipartisan
support for this legislation that will help drive healthcare costs
down.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think a couple of points, before I get to the main
portion of my remarks, that the manager of the bill threw out need to
be addressed.
First of all, my wife is a prosecutor. I like prosecutors, but they
are lawyers. I was a trial lawyer until December 31 of last year. Guess
what? We sue drunk drivers. We sue for people who get hurt when it is
not their own fault. I come from a State where contributory negligence
is the law. So I appreciate the reverence you hold prosecutors in--I
do, as well--but we are all lawyers.
I also want to point out that, while there may be people on the floor
who are not lawyers, you can't honestly believe this bill gives you
equal access to justice, and here is why: You have a cap on noneconomic
damages. So a person who is injured by a doctor and a person who
receives the exact same injuries from some other tort have two
different recoveries that they can reach. One is capped; one is not.
That is not equal justice, in my judgment, under the law.
In addition, you all are the pro-business party, yet you all want to
get into how people contract with one another. I would suggest that is
inconsistent with your pro-business approach.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill really underlies is a fundamental
mistrust for our constituents. Think about it. Juries are made up of
our constituents. What you are really worried about is that your
constituents are not going to get it right when they are sitting in
that jury box and making decisions.
Your constituents are wise enough to send me and 435 of us here to
the Congress to make decisions about trillion-dollar budgets, yet you
don't trust them to sit in the jury box and make the very important
decisions for their fellow citizens when they are injured.
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that this bill clearly violates the
spirit of the Seventh Amendment, the right to trial by jury, by putting
these limitations on the jury, by putting limitations on access to
justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded that Members are
to direct all remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was glad my colleague pointed out that it violates the Seventh
Amendment. Now we add that to the 10th
[[Page H5197]]
Amendment. So there are actually two Amendments. I am not even an
attorney, but I know this violates two Amendments to our Constitution.
That is pretty impressive for one bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1215.
My Republican colleagues seem to have a fixation with caps. In their
healthcare bill, they slash Medicaid and, for the first time in its
history, cap Federal funding. The result: hospital closures,
reimbursement and staffing cuts, reduced access, and lower quality.
Now, in this bill, they want to impose another cap, a cap on
noneconomic damages for injured healthcare consumers.
So who will be hurt?
It will be people like the 76-year-old woman whose tailbone had to be
removed because her bed sores went untreated for 12 days or an 81-year-
old resident who died because her ventilator was dislodged, alarms
sounded, and no one responded.
How about the family of a 92-year-old man who died after suffering
from malnutrition and dehydration and was found with live insects in
his eyes and mouth?
How do we put a $250,000 value on those injured?
Besides, this is a solution looking for a problem. There is no
medical malpractice lawsuit crisis. Between 2000 and 2015, the number
of claims dropped more than 40 percent and the amount paid fell 23
percent.
But we do face a medical crisis. Nearly half a million Americans die
every year from preventable medical errors, and many more are
permanently injured. This bill does nothing to solve that problem.
Instead, it just takes away the right of the injured consumers.
{time} 1300
And if you believe that average Americans should not be barred from
the justice system as they seek to hold wrongdoers accountable, then
you must oppose this bill.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point.
I have heard a number of times now that this bill is a solution
searching for a problem or it does nothing to help our underlying cost.
The Congressional Budget Office, the very office that my friend
relies on for the most recent estimate of those that will decide not to
seek insurance under the Senate healthcare bill, has estimated that
this bill will save taxpayers $50 billion over 10 years and reduce
medical malpractice insurance premiums by 25 percent to 30 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to inquire of my friend from Colorado whether
recognizing those savings is in fact a Federal responsibility or a
State responsibility.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friend from Colorado that the
very $250,000 cap that we are talking about in this bill is the same
cap that has been adopted by the Colorado State Legislature.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, exactly. What I would further add, then, is
whose prerogative is it to institute this kind of cap: States like our
own State of Colorado, which has that cap? Or Washington, D.C. insiders
behind closed doors?
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend again that the States
that have adopted any cap--it could be $250,000, it could be $500,000,
it could be $1 million in non-economic damage caps--will not be
affected by this bill. This bill only affects those States that have no
caps, and it is Federal money that is being used to pay for these.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this effectively co-ops
States and forces other States to do the same thing that my colleague's
and my State of Colorado has already done. It goes beyond that as well.
Under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, this should be a power
reserved for the States.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to shed light on a serious issue facing
millions of students nationally and in my home State of Colorado. Every
day, 50 million students and 3 million teachers face significant health
and safety threats due to inadequate school facilities. I have heard
about many in Colorado, school gyms that are closed down because their
roofs are falling in, staggering statistics that disproportionately
affect high-poverty schools, particularly urban and rural schools, and
many schools serving a high percentage of minority students.
Today we have a chance to address this rampant inequality throughout
our school districts and to create jobs in the process.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Rebuild America's Schools
Act, H.R. 2475, which I am also a proud co-sponsor of. Mr. Scott's
legislation would invest $100 billion in the physical and digital
infrastructure needs of our schools, creating nearly 2 million jobs and
creating the education infrastructure we need for the 21st century.
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 (Mr. Donovan). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education
and the Workforce Committee, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) for proposing this amendment.
The Rebuild America's Schools Act would help ensure that each of our
Nation's 50 million public school students, taught by 3 million
teachers, will have access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning
facilities and internet access sufficient for digital learning in the
classroom.
This bold proposal would create nearly 2 million jobs, improve
student learning, and revitalize under-resourced communities.
The Rebuild America's Schools Act is a win for students, families,
workers, and the economy; and any responsible infrastructure proposal
put forth by Congress should include a bold investment in our Nation's
public schools.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced on the 63rd anniversary of
Brown v. Board of Education because, despite the promise of Brown, our
public school facilities remain largely separate and woefully unequal.
Last year, on the 62nd anniversary of Brown, Ranking Member Conyers
and I unveiled the findings of a GAO report that found that more
students are attending schools highly segregated by race and class.
Now, that most recent GAO report examining the state of our public
schools' infrastructure saw that low-income and minority students are
served by poor and inadequate school facilities.
If we are to fully achieve the promise of Brown, then no child should
remain in a classroom with a leaking roof or a broken heating system.
All students should have equitable access to science labs or spaces for
high-quality career and technical educational programs.
Mr. Speaker, 12 States do not invest any money in capital
construction projects in public schools, leaving responsibility of
ensuring high-quality classrooms up to localities and local property
taxes, which virtually guarantees inequitable funding between high- and
low-income districts.
This bill targets Federal funding for school infrastructure to
districts and school buildings with the greatest need for improvement
to their physical and digital infrastructure, which would be an
important step in fulfilling the promise of Brown.
All too often, when Congress talks about infrastructure investment,
we speak only about investments in roads, bridges, and other public
buildings. Public schools are often left out of the conversation, but
schools must be part of that conversation on infrastructure.
The Rebuild America's Schools Act will ensure safe drinking water in
schools, prevent instructional materials like textbooks from being
ruined
[[Page H5198]]
as a result of broken heating and air-conditioning systems, and improve
air quality that students breathe in the schools. It will bring access
to digital learning for more than 11 million students in nearly 20,000
schools who do not already have it. Finally, the bill would mean high-
quality jobs for nearly 2 million pipefitters, construction workers,
and other hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question so we can
debate and pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act. We owe it to
America's students and hardworking families.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire of my friend from Colorado,
he mentioned when he was introducing the gentleman from Virginia that
there are schools that are closing because gym roofs are falling in. I
know a number of very generous individuals that would like to
contribute.
Does the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) have the names of any of
those schools for us?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to supply those. To be clear,
the entire school doesn't close, just the gym closes.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I do have further speakers.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rebuilding
America's Schools Act. Every day, students attend schools that put
their health and safety at risk. The average school building is nearly
50 years old, and teachers and children struggle to learn in classrooms
without heat, leaking ceilings, and no working internet.
Mr. Speaker, our children deserve better. Research shows that poor
school facility conditions impact teaching and learning, and
disproportionately plague schools that serve low-income and minority
students all throughout America. Regardless of their ZIP Code, all
children should have access to a quality education, and no child should
have to learn in an unsafe or dilapidated environment.
The Rebuilding America's Schools Act would provide critically needed
investments in Las Vegas and rural Nevada to improve our school
infrastructure, helping teachers teach and children learn.
President Trump has repeatedly promised to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure. Passing the Rebuilding America's Schools Act would be
the first step in making this happen. We must make an investment in our
future generation to guarantee their shot at success.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of
legislation.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when we think about healthcare, we all think about, of
course, first and foremost, ourselves and our loved ones and our
families. As Representatives of 750,000 people, we also think about
constituents that we know, that we have met, for whom healthcare is
literally a life-and-death situation.
I think of my friend Debbie and her son Sam. Debbie's son Sam was
diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 4 years old. He is now 20 or
21 or so. He was a healthy kid, he ate healthy food, an active young
child. As Debbie pointed out to me, it is not that anybody chooses an
illness or a condition, the illness chooses you. Through the luck of
the draw, her son Sam is afflicted with type 1 diabetes. Like many
people with autoimmune diseases, it was not poor choices, it was not
lifestyle decisions that gave him the disease or even increased his
risk of the disease. He was dealt a bad hand with an autoimmune gene
that his family didn't even know that they had.
Because of that, Sam has a costly disease. Thankfully, one that can
be treated, if not cured, but he has a costly disease for the rest of
his life. There is no cure, and the cost of insulin and other
lifesaving technologies is very high.
Sam has what here in Washington people call a preexisting condition.
That is what we are talking about. Without insurance, the cost per
month would go from about $400, which Debbie and her husband are able
to afford and put together for Sam, to $2,500 a month, which they could
not possibly afford to do.
Sam is now 20, and because of the Affordable Care Act, he will be on
the family's health insurance until he is 26. That is, if the family
can keep their health insurance. The family worries, like so many
others, that they might be one of those 22 million families that loses
coverage under this Republican healthcare bill. It is a lot of
families.
It is not going to be any of my colleagues' families. My colleagues
have a government health insurance plan from serving in the House of
Representatives. Their congressional staff has access to the exchanges,
just like we do, to buy insurance. But 22 million people in each and
every one of our districts, 435 districts in this country, in each and
every one of our districts, not dozens of people, not hundreds of
people, but thousands of real people like Deb and Sam, like a story I
shared earlier of Marcia and Grace, will actually lose their
healthcare. They will be forced to give up their home, become
insolvent, go bankrupt, or die. A choice that no American should have
to face.
Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is one of many that
didn't go through regular order. There were no hearings. Closed
process. They cut out all the Democratic amendments that we had to
improve the bill. That is how the Republicans have been handling
healthcare legislation this Congress. That is why this approach isn't
working. It is why this approach is so unpopular. No hearings, shut
Members out of the legislative process, bring a bill to the floor that
was hidden in some closet, written in secret, widely unpopular,
throwing people off healthcare insurance, raising rates for those who
are luckily enough to keep their insurance.
This bill is not aimed at protecting patients. This bill before us
and the Senate Republican healthcare bill make it more difficult for
Americans to deal with real-life healthcare issues that were dealt over
the course of life for ourselves and our families.
We need a reset, Mr. Speaker. We need to reset and start real
discussions about improving healthcare.
How could Democrats or Republicans work together to reduce costs?
Democrats and Republicans should work together to expand coverage. We
shouldn't be talking about whether 22 million people lose coverage or
10 million people lose coverage or 5 million people lose coverage.
Let's talk about 5 million people gaining coverage, 10 million people
gaining coverage. Let's reset and frame the discussion about how more
people can have access to healthcare.
The problem we are trying to solve is not how can we get less
Americans to have access to healthcare. That is why this bill is so
unpopular. If that is the problem Republicans are trying to solve, they
solved it in this bill. Less Americans will have healthcare. But that
is not the problem that the American people want us to address in
Congress.
More people with healthcare, and people want to save money. They want
their insurance rates to be lower, their deductibles to be lower. They
want to save money. There are some low-hanging fruit in terms of costs
in healthcare, administrative overhead, wasteful and duplicative
spending, that we can go after together. These are good ideas, whether
you are a Democrat or a Republican.
One of the amendments that I proposed was pricing transparency. One
of the problems in the healthcare marketplace is nobody knows how much
anybody charges. Different insurers and private payers pay widely
different amounts for the exact same procedure. Let's at least disclose
the pricing and have transparency so market mechanisms will work to
pull down rates by promoting competition.
{time} 1315
By not allowing the market into healthcare, we are creating
inefficiencies and raising rates. Let's come together on that. Let's
come together around a lot of good ideas that Democrats and Republicans
have bills on and have amendments on. But, no, they are not even
allowed to be debated and not even allowed to be voted on either on
[[Page H5199]]
this bill, in which every Democratic amendment was shut down, or in the
Republican healthcare bill, in which no process was allowed for
Democrats to improve the bill.
We have never even been invited into the secret backroom to figure
out what was being debated. We didn't even see the bill until it was
presented fully formed days before it had to be voted on, affecting the
lives of 22 million Americans, one-eighth of our entire economy,
without any hearings, without any expert testimony, and only days to
digest this hundred-page bill.
So look, let's reset, let's work together to bring down costs,
expanding coverage and improving quality, and create a work product in
healthcare reform that we can be proud of as Republicans, as Democrats,
and as Americans; one in which Debbie and her son, Sam, don't have to
worry about giving up their home or facing death; or one in which Grace
and her mother are able to live out their lives without worrying about
their preexisting condition.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to reject this closed rule,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's newfound sense of
bipartisanship. The Affordable Care Act was passed without a single
Republican vote in the House, without a single Republican vote in the
Senate, and without any concern of Republican thoughts about how
healthcare should be run in this country. Now that the Affordable Care
Act is, in fact, failing; now that we have over 90 counties in America
that have zero health insurers to choose from in the individual market;
and now that we see the Affordable Care Act in a death spiral, all of a
sudden, we are concerned about the bipartisanship and how to fix the
problem.
We have heard zero amendments in the past 6 years to the Affordable
Care Act that would have, in fact, improved the Affordable Care Act
from the other side of the aisle while they had the President in the
White House, and now, all of a sudden, we are looking for
bipartisanship and solutions. We will find that bipartisanship and
those solutions in the future.
Mr. Speaker, if we truly want affordable healthcare in this country,
then we need to address the cost of supplying care. H.R. 1215 strikes
at the heart of skyrocketing medical care. By limiting frivolous and
unending lawsuits, doctors can focus less on the courtroom and more on
the patient in the operating room.
The reforms made by H.R. 1215 will be especially important for rural
America and underserved urban America. Doctors will be able to afford
to live and practice in these communities, providing the attentive and
responsive care that all Americans deserve, not just Americans who live
a few miles from a major hospital.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation. I know Democrats and Republicans have different policy
approaches to reforming our healthcare system, but this legislation has
already been implemented by Democrats in the State of California, where
it has proven successful. Now we have the chance to apply this approach
more broadly, in a way that will help millions of Americans. This
effort has been bipartisan in the past and should be bipartisan today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this bill, Representative Steve
King.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
governing debate of H.R. 1215, the ``Protecting Access to Care Act of
2017'' and the underlying bill.
I oppose the rule for H.R. 1215, the ``Protecting Access to Care Act
of 2017'' for the following reasons:
There were twenty-five amendments proposed by colleagues from both
sides of the aisle.
Only five of those amendments were made in order.
What did all five of those amendments have in common?
These amendments were all submitted by my Republican counterparts.
The rule for this bill incorporates none of the amendments offered by
my Democratic colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, that exclusion is problematic.
The amendments not made in order reflect the crippling partisanship
of the House majority.
I also oppose the underlying bill on the merits, because it limits
noneconomic damages to a mere $250,000, which if enacted, would have a
disproportionately adverse impact on women, the poor, and other
vulnerable groups.
When given the opportunity, members refused to incorporate an
amendment that would increase that cap to reflect the cost of inflation
and a concern for the humane treatment of those individuals affected by
medical malpractice.
H.R. 1215 provides immunity for health care providers who dispense
defective or dangerous pharmaceuticals or medical devices.
Finally, I oppose the bill, because it creates an excessively short
statute of limitations period, makes it harder for victims to obtain
adequate legal representation, and imposes the risk of loss on victims
rather than wrongdoers.
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous examples of people who have suffered
at the hands of medical providers and whose lives will never be the
same.
Consider the case of Olivia, an exceptionally bright high school
senior from Santa Monica, California, who had gained early acceptance
to Smith College in Massachusetts.
She never made it to Smith College, because after a medical procedure
was completed and while Olivia was still under anesthesia, a fellow-in-
training pulled the catheter causing Olivia's vital signs to plummet.
Hospital staff waited more than ten minutes to resuscitate her, but
it was far too late for Olivia.
She passed away, and her promising future disappeared.
This tragedy never should have happened.
Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on this giveaway to special
interests, we should be improving the Affordable Care Act, and opposing
any bill that would leave over twenty million Americans uninsured, and
investigating Russian involvement in our democratic processes.
For these reasons, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 382 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2475) to provide for the long-term improvement of public
school facilities, and for other purposes. 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 Education and the
Workforce. 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. 2475.
____
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
[[Page H5200]]
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. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 184, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 325]
YEAS--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
Bridenstine
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
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
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
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
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
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--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
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
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
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
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
Nolan
Norcross
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
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)
NOT VOTING--15
Cummings
DeLauro
Flores
Granger
Jayapal
Loebsack
Long
Napolitano
Neal
O'Halleran
Renacci
Scalise
Sewell (AL)
Stivers
Yarmuth
{time} 1340
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, Messrs. VELA, and BISHOP of Georgia
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 325.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 325.
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. POLIS. 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 235,
noes 186, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 326]
AYES--235
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 (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
[[Page H5201]]
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
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
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
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
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
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--186
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
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)
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
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
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Cummings
DeLauro
Hice, Jody B.
Himes
Long
Napolitano
Neal
Pelosi
Renacci
Scalise
Stivers
Vela
{time} 1348
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.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
323, No. 324, No. 325, and No. 326 due to my spouse's health situation
in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R.
2547--Veterans Expanded Trucking Opportunities Act of 2017. I would
have also voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2258--ADVANCE Act. I would have also
voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1215. I would have also voted
``nay'' on H. Res. 382--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1215--
Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.
____________________