[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7100-H7106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6199, RESTORING ACCESS TO 
MEDICATION ACT OF 2018, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD 
             FROM JULY 27, 2018, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3, 2018

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1012 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1012

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6199) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include certain 
     over-the-counter medical products as qualified medical 
     expenses. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-82 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.  On any legislative day during the period from July 
     27, 2018, through September 3, 2018--
       (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1012 provides for the 
consideration of an important bill to return control of healthcare 
spending and budgeting back where it belongs: with the patient.
  H.R. 6199, the Restoring Access to Medication and Modernizing Health 
Savings Accounts Act of 2018, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to include certain over-the-counter medical products as qualified 
medical expenses for the purposes of spending one's own dollars within 
a health savings account.
  Today's resolution provides for a rule to allow H.R. 6199, the 
Restoring Access to Medication and Modernizing Health Savings Accounts 
Act of 2018, the standard practice for a tax-related measure on the 
House floor. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled between the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule does, however, provide the 
minority with the customary motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Also included in the resolution before us today are the standard 
provisions allowing the House of Representatives to continue to operate 
while Members are home, working with their constituents during the 
August district work period.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule on H.R. 
6199, the Restoring Access to Medication and Modernizing Health Savings 
Accounts Act of 2018. This rule includes the work of various Members of 
Congress on the important issue of modernizing health savings accounts. 
While this legislation did not move through the Health Subcommittee of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, my fellow members on the other 
Health Subcommittee, that of the Ways and Means Committee, have done 
quality work in moving this package. Each bill was reported favorably 
out of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long been a supporter of increasing flexibility 
within our healthcare system, especially through the use of health 
savings accounts. Health savings accounts allow patients to feel more 
involved and to have more control over their healthcare spending. As 
someone who has personally had a health savings account in the past, I 
believe it to be a powerful tool but that qualified expenses have been 
limited for too long.
  This package will give more power to consumers by allowing them to 
use their hard-earned savings that they put into their health savings 
accounts on an expanded number of healthcare goods and services.
  The first bill in this package, Promoting High-Value Healthcare 
Through Flexibility for High-Deductible Health Plans Act, introduced by 
Chairman Roskam, allows for first-dollar coverage flexibility for high-
deductible health plans. Many individuals, especially in the post-
Affordable Care Act world, have chosen to purchase high-deductible 
health plans. While this is a reasonable choice for many consumers, 
there are some who are faced with high out-of-pocket costs.
  H.R. 6199 allows health plans to provide coverage for up to $250 per 
year for individuals or $500 per year for families before they meet 
their deductible. The goal of this provision is to incentivize services 
that could reduce future healthcare costs, such as primary care visits 
and telehealth services.
  Additionally, under current law, individuals are unable to contribute 
to an HSA if they participate in a direct primary care service 
arrangement. Representative Erik Paulsen's Primary Care Enhancement 
Act, which is included in this rule, enables patients to be able to 
participate in a direct primary care service arrangement and remain 
qualified to contribute to a health savings account. It also includes 
direct primary care service arrangement fees as medical expenses.
  Some individuals are fortunate enough to receive certain healthcare 
services at or nearby their workplace through their employer. 
Representative  Mike Kelly's bipartisan Health

[[Page H7101]]

Savings Account Improvement Act of 2018, which is included in this 
package, addresses this issue.
  While it is convenient and helpful to have access to such services, 
these individuals should not be barred from having a health savings 
account. This package creates a special rule that individuals can 
receive free or discounted services offered by their employers onsite 
or at retail medical clinics. These services may include physical 
exams, immunizations, nonprescription drugs, treatment of employment-
related injuries, drug testing if required as a condition of 
employment, hearing or vision screenings, or other services that are 
not considered significant benefits in the nature of medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, the post-Affordable Care Act world is riddled with 
flaws, but one of the biggest problems is its failure to promote 
consumer-driven healthcare. Expanding the use of health savings 
accounts could go a long way to reverse this trend. Health savings 
accounts give consumers incentives to manage their own healthcare costs 
by coupling a tax-favored savings account used to pay medical expenses 
with a high-deductible health plan that meets certain requirements for 
deductibles and out-of-pocket expense limits. The funds in a health 
savings account are owned by the individual and may be rolled over from 
year to year.
  Health savings accounts are not a novel idea. They have been around 
since 2004, but current health savings account policy is 
extraordinarily restrictive, making it harder for consumers to take 
advantage of it.

  I have spent several years in developing extensive reforms to 
increase the potential for health savings accounts for consumers, and 
H.R. 6199 includes meaningful improvements that we can, in fact, get 
across the finish line now to help families now.
  One of these improvements is the ability for spouses to contribute to 
a health savings account under certain circumstances even if their 
spouse has a flexible spending account. Under current law, one spouse 
can reimburse expenses for their spouses' and other dependents' medical 
expenses; therefore, the other spouse is considered to be ineligible 
for an HSA.
  This provision enables the spouse without the flexible spending 
account to reimburse for medical expenses, with certain restrictions. 
This is critical, as it gives individuals increased flexibility to save 
for their own healthcare expenses that a shared flexible spending 
account for the whole family may not provide.
  Additionally, this bill allows for individuals to terminate or 
convert their flexible spending account and health reimbursement 
accounts into a health savings account under certain circumstances. 
Employers would be able to allow their employees to convert their 
flexible spending account and health reimbursement account balances 
into health savings account funds if they enroll in a high-deductible 
health plan with an HSA. This is critical in empowering patients and 
allowing them the flexibility to change health plans without losing 
their savings.
  There is a dollar limitation of $2,650 for conversions for 
individuals, $5,300 for families, and the funds transferred into the 
HSA would count toward the enrollee's HSA contribution for that taxable 
year.
  H.R. 6199, the bill introduced by Representative Lynn Jenkins from 
Kansas, makes commonsense, patient-centered reforms to help defray 
costs for individuals. Over-the-counter medications, allergy and cold 
medicines, antibiotic ointment, and pain relievers are historically 
ineligible expenditures for HSA and other tax-favored healthcare 
accounts. The ACA created a requirement in Federal law that forced 
account holders to go to their doctor to obtain a prescription for 
over-the-counter medications before purchasing them with their health 
savings account or flexible spending account. Individuals who fail to 
jump through these hoops and purchase over-the-counter medications 
without a prescription, in fact, face a tax penalty for making a 
nonqualified distribution.
  This policy drives unnecessary utilization of doctor services, 
decreases access to over-the-counter medications, and discourages 
people from taking control of saving for their healthcare needs. H.R. 
6199 repeals this harmful provision, puts consumers back in the 
driver's seat, and allows them efficient access to appropriate 
medications.
  Lastly, this legislation permits individuals to invest their hard-
earned health savings account dollars into their physical fitness and 
well-being. In many ways, income is a hurdle for individuals and 
families who would like to participate in a physical activity, whether 
they would like to pay for a membership at a fitness facility or pay 
for their children to join a youth sports league. This legislation 
opens the door for paying for such activities with health savings 
account dollars.
  Known originally as a standalone bill, the Personal Health Investment 
Today Act, introduced by Representative Jason Smith, allows qualified 
sports and fitness expenses to count as qualified medical expenses. 
These particular expenses are capped at $500 a year for individuals and 
$1,000 on a joint return.

                              {time}  1315

  Passage of this provision will assist individuals and families across 
the Nation in investing in their physical fitness, which can lead them 
to healthier lives and stave off conditions such as diabetes and 
obesity. These bills are an important example of the work we are doing 
right now to advance Member-driven solutions that will improve 
healthcare for all Americans.
  Deductibles, out-of-pocket limitations have been steadily growing. 
Congress should be taking steps to make it easier for Americans to 
save, not restricting their options. The rule and the underlying bills 
included in this package strengthen consumer power and increase 
flexibility for patients in paying for their medical expenses.
  I appreciate all of the work that the Members have put into the 
provisions of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule 
and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, $2 trillion, that is what this GOP Congress added to the 
debt last year when they passed their tax scam, $2 trillion that has 
been taken away from our children and grandchildren to give tax breaks 
to corporations and the very wealthy.
  And today, we take up three bills which are estimated to add another 
$100 billion. I suppose in comparison to the tax scam, that may be 
small potatoes, but this is real spending with no offsets and no effort 
to even try to find an offset. When the 115th Congress finally ends, we 
will have to put trillions on the Nation's credit card--trillions.
  Next year, those of us who may be lucky enough to be back will have 
the hard task of digging ourselves out of this hole, this wall of debt 
that will have been created by the 115th Congress. We will have new 
Members here who will need to deal with the decisions that we are 
making here today.
  Let me tell you about my experience in having to deal with those very 
irresponsible decisions that put us and pushed us into debt.
  In 2008, when I was first elected to the State legislature, I was 
elected with a wall of debt of $15 billion. My first 30 days in office, 
we passed four different budgets, and none of it added up. We simply 
couldn't pay our bills. We had charged ourselves to a place that we 
could no longer continue.
  No one got paid for 6 or 7 months--no one, not the small contractors 
doing business with the State of California, not the big contractors, 
not our State employees, not even the members of the legislature. As a 
matter of fact, I don't come from money, so every month I took a loan 
to make my mortgage. And this is where the 115th Congress is leading us 
today. There are no easy choices.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 6199, the Restoring Access 
to Medication and Modernizing Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018. H.R. 
6199 claims to restore access to medication and modernizes health 
savings accounts. This bill makes minor changes that largely favor 
higher income-earning individuals who can afford to set aside that 
extra money for things like gym memberships.
  This is not, however, the worst bill we have voted on this year. And 
some

[[Page H7102]]

of us may end up even voting for it. After all, I support fixes to the 
Affordable Care Act. We all do. However, it does not address the 
destructive actions by President Trump that have disproportionately 
affected low-income families.
  After nearly 70 unsuccessful repeal attempts by this Congress, this 
administration has, sadly, turned to chipping away at the Affordable 
Care Act. President Trump has resorted to undoing key provisions of the 
healthcare law without offering any working fixes, which ultimately 
puts in jeopardy access to healthcare.
  He has eliminated the individual mandate, which alone will increase 
premiums by 9 or 10 percent, and he is expanding plans that offer 
slimmer benefits and reduce consumer protection, also known as junk 
plans, as they cover nothing.
  Healthcare plans that can charge you more for being a woman or for 
being older or for having a preexisting condition, these plans can also 
outright deny coverage to anyone, putting 130 million Americans' 
healthcare at risk. Expanding these volatile health plans into the 
marketplace will also increase premiums between 1 and 4 percent.
  Almost a year ago, the Trump administration announced that they were 
canceling cost-sharing reduction payments which helped nearly 6 million 
low-income Americans better afford medical services by lowering 
deductibles and copayments. This alone caused premiums in 2018 to 
increase by 20 percent, all while this majority won't even try to find 
a $100 billion offset. Cutting cost-sharing payments increased the 
deficit by $200 billion. The administration also recently cut 
additional outreach and consumer education dollars to local 
organizations by $10 million.
  And this is not the first time that they cut these critical dollars. 
From the very beginning of this administration, millions of dollars in 
outreach, customer assistance and other help and total enrollment time 
was cut out. Additionally, we are still waiting on a solution to combat 
the rising prescription drug crisis, which was promised by this 
administration.
  The increasing cost of prescription drugs in combination with the 
forecasted increase in medical price inflation will also raise premiums 
between 5.7 and 6.5 percent next year.
  Earlier this month, President Trump announced yet another sabotage: 
that he will not make the $10.4 billion in risk adjustment payments, 
which will also increase premiums. These risk adjustment payments 
protect consumers by ensuring insurance companies don't cherry-pick 
between the healthy and the sick.
  It was very telling last week when the Ways and Means Committee 
chairman said that GOP lawmakers were exploring a possible legislative 
fix to restart the risk adjustment payments that President Trump 
abruptly suspended. The House GOP leadership knows the harm President 
Trump is causing. Why don't we do something about it today?

  The common theme here is an administration consistently undoing key 
provisions in our healthcare system, putting Americans' health at risk, 
increasing premiums, which fall squarely on the shoulders of our 
families and will add billions of dollars to our deficit.
  This isn't the Affordable Care Act. This is TrumpCare. This bill is 
more of the same. Instead of finding solutions for the families that 
need it the most, this bill will add $100 billion to the deficit.
  We should be spending our time making positive, meaningful 
improvements to our existing healthcare system that ensures millions of 
Americans have access to affordable healthcare coverage.
  We should be discussing legislation that puts downward pressure on 
premiums so families don't have to worry year after year if they will 
be able to afford healthcare coverage.
  We should be helping to stabilize the marketplace so consumers can 
choose from a variety of options that meet their unique family needs.
  Instead, today, we are, sadly, wasting time discussing a bill that 
fails to address the concerns of millions of Americans.
  I am proud to be from California, a State that stands up for their 
residents to ensure that they have access to healthcare coverage. In 
fact, California's comprehensive outreach and marketing program was 
credited with lowering premiums by 6 to 8 percent--real money. 
California is proof that effective advertising and outreach can 
increase enrollment, expand coverage, stabilize risk pools, and lower 
premiums.
  But this administration--and through inaction, this Congress--is 
driving up healthcare prices for every American, including 
Californians. So we will vote today on this bill, and it will probably 
pass, and then it will die in the Senate. And while we send the Senate 
more legislation that they will never take up, Americans will continue 
to suffer.
  Like I said, this isn't a bad bill, but it only benefits 6 percent of 
Americans--6 percent, not the 14 percent who lack healthcare insurance 
at all.
  We must do more. We must help those who are falling further and 
further behind while this Congress buries us in debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to draw attention to an opinion 
article in today's Wall Street Journal. The title of the article is 
``TrumpCare Beats ObamaCare,'' July 23, 2018, penned by James Freeman.
  ``By prioritizing economic growth and reducing the tax and regulatory 
burdens on U.S. business, Mr. Trump has helped to create an economy 
with more job openings than ever before. As if by magic, the invisible 
hand of a freer marketplace is now generating new benefits as employers 
compete to fill all those open positions.''

                              {time}  1330

  ``For the first time in 6 years, the share of U.S. workers offered 
health insurance through their employer has risen, a sign a tighter 
labor market is prompting businesses to offer more generous benefits. . 
. .''
  ``The Trump plan is repairing at least some of the damage caused by 
ObamaCare. Notes the Journal:
  ``Among all private-sector workers offered medical benefits, 72 
percent opted to take them,'' which is up from the 17 percent in 2010 
when it began to decline.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is to point out that this is all occurring 
without a new government program. This is because of the strength of 
the economy. This is what happens when you put the focus on creating 
good jobs for American workers. This is the benefit that results.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Ruiz's legislation, 
H.R. 6479, which will ban junk insurance plans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, premiums are skyrocketing across the country, 
caused by this administration's sabotage of the Affordable Care Act. 
Just listen to the insurance company CEOs who are directly stating that 
not funding cost-sharing reductions for point of care for patients who 
are struggling to pay their bills will increase premiums. And also, by 
not outreaching to more people and low-risk individuals to come into 
the insurance pool, they are also increasing the premiums for everybody 
else.
  But rather than making healthcare more affordable for all middle 
class families, this Congress is focusing on making healthcare more 
affordable for the wealthy few.
  Instead of protecting the 130 million Americans with preexisting 
conditions, this Congress is sitting idly by as this administration 
once again allows insurance companies to sell junk plans that don't 
even cover basic healthcare services.

[[Page H7103]]

  At a time when we should be stabilizing premiums by supporting risk-
adjustment transfers and ACA enrollment outreach, the majority is 
refusing to act, simply ignoring the anticipated 18 percent increase in 
premiums for hardworking Americans throughout our country because, 
rather than help the American people, the majority would rather 
sabotage the Affordable Care Act for their own political gain.
  This is wrong. So I offer the majority and all the Members of the 
House this choice: Members can support the previous question, ignore 
the people who will be priced out of healthcare, and ignore all the 
politically motivated actions by this administration to undermine 
access to affordable healthcare in our Nation; or Members can defeat 
the previous question so that we can bring up my bill, H.R. 6479, the 
Stop Junk Health Plans Act, which will lower costs and will ensure that 
Americans continue to have access to high-quality, affordable health 
plans. It is that simple.
  You see, in general, there are three out-of-pocket or more than three 
out-of-pocket costs; in fact, one is the premiums, two is the 
deductibles, three is the co-pays, and four is the out-of-pocket costs 
Americans will have to pay if their health insurance doesn't cover 
those specific services.
  So only focusing on premiums is a message deception. You see, with 
junk plans, that will increase out-of-pocket costs for patients because 
these junk plans may offer Americans a less expensive premium; however, 
the deductibles will be too expensive.
  Also, if the majority goes after the essential health benefits and 
allows insurance companies not to cover things like emergency care, 
mental health, or prescription drugs, then they will be responsible for 
those out-of-pocket costs.
  Also, if the majority does not defend the protections of people with 
preexisting illness--and insurance companies are now able to 
discriminate against those with diabetes, heart conditions, asthma, et 
cetera--then those individuals will have to pay more overall out-of-
pocket costs either because they were denied or because health 
insurance companies will be able to charge them an exorbitant amount of 
money.
  So this is why it is so important to keep patient out-of-pocket costs 
in perspective and not just focus on the political messaging tools of 
narrowly focusing on premiums, because someone can buy a low-cost 
premium health insurance, but, again, if it doesn't cover mental 
health, prescription drugs, emergency care, or other forms of 
guaranteed coverage under the Affordable Care Act, then they are going 
to have to pay that completely out of pocket.
  If the majority doesn't protect patients with preexisting illness, 
then that is 180 million people in this country who have preexisting 
illnesses who are going to have to pay more out of pocket.
  So, therefore, we must focus and stabilize the health insurance 
market; we must lower insurance costs by increasing enrollees into the 
insurance market by low-risk individuals; we must protect essential 
coverage and protect people with preexisting illness; and we must lower 
drug prices and the cost of overall care.
  I urge all my colleagues to make the right choice--the only choice--
that supports the American people, in this case, the out-of-pocket 
costs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous 
question. I urge Members to do the right thing, to think strategically, 
and to think about the overall out-of-pocket costs.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was serving in the United States House of 
Representatives when the congressional Democrats passed the Affordable 
Care Act. I was serving in the House of Representatives when the 
implementation of ObamaCare happened at the end of calendar year 2013.
  I have got to tell you something. The President told me I had a junk 
insurance plan. I was covered by a health savings account in those 
years. Then-President Obama told me I had a junk insurance plan and 
that I was going to get something better.
  I have got to tell you something. I didn't get something better. I 
went through healthcare.gov. I bought an unsubsidized ObamaCare policy, 
the bronze plan. I am like any other consumer. I bought on price.
  What is the cheapest thing I could afford? That was the bronze plan. 
The premium was unbelievable. It was three times what I had paid for a 
premium before for my so-called junk insurance which I had had for 
years, which had covered every medical contingency that had occurred in 
my family's life for a number of years. But now I have to buy this 
policy that the premium was unbelievably high. But that wasn't the 
worst part, Mr. Speaker. The worst part was the deductible.
  Now, look, I had a health savings account. I bought one as soon as 
the old medical savings accounts were allowed with the passage of the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill in, I think it was, July of 1996. The rules got 
written the next year. People were allowed to buy medical savings 
accounts. I bought one. I converted to a health savings account in 
2004.
  I thought I knew what a high deductible was. That was the whole 
purpose, after all, of having that medical savings account and, now, 
health savings account. You have a higher deductible so your premiums 
are going to be a little bit lower.
  My premium certainly wasn't lower, but that deductible was something 
unlike anything I had ever seen. I went from a $3,500 deductible in my 
old health savings account with what then-President Obama said was a 
junk insurance policy. I went from a $3,500 premium to a $6,800 premium 
for just an individual. This is not a family policy, just for an 
individual.
  Now, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Someone wakes up at 3 in 
the morning with a kidney stone, the worst pain they have ever had in 
their life. They go to the emergency room basically to get a shot of 
morphine and an appointment with a urologist the next day and hopefully 
pass the darn thing. That exercise can cost in excess of $4,000. If you 
have a $6,800 deductible, guess what. That is all on you. Your coverage 
is meaningless at that point. And at the same time, you are having to 
pay a very expensive premium for coverage that is not there when you 
need it.
  I am not an expert on this, Mr. Speaker, but I would call that junk 
insurance. That is what then-President Obama and the Congressional 
Democrats brought us with the passage of the so-called Affordable Care 
Act. I would far rather go back to those days before.
  Most people don't understand why it is they have less coverage now 
and it costs them more money. Yeah, they heard the argument, if you 
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your coverage, 
you can keep your coverage. They recognize that perhaps that was 
political hyperbole. But what they do not understand is: Why am I 
having to pay so much more now to get so much less?
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that the ability for individuals to buy health 
savings accounts is not junk insurance. That is coverage that people 
can use. That is help for right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, in the first 12 months of this administration, 3.2 
million people have lost their healthcare because of the sabotage of 
this administration. As a matter of fact, last year, we had the highest 
increase in the number of uninsured since the ACA was passed.
  When the ACA was passed, I was not in Congress. I was a State 
legislator in California, where we embraced the ACA, where we made it 
work for our families, and where we reached out to our constituents and 
asked: How can we make it better?
  This is not the ceiling; this is the floor.
  As State representatives, we felt that we had an urgency to act, to 
make it better and make it work for our constituents. That is what we 
did, and that is why the California exchange is so successful.

[[Page H7104]]

  But that didn't happen in other States controlled by Republican 
legislators and Republican Governors. Unfortunately, they chose to do 
the opposite, and that has hurt their constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today will add another $100 
billion to our national debt. That is not a small thing.
  When the bill comes due for this expenditure, how are we going to pay 
for it? What is the plan? Where is the budget? Where is the fiscal 
conservancy here?
  Will the House GOP majority then go after the least fortunate 
Americans by cutting Medicaid? Or maybe they will go after American 
seniors and cut Medicare and Social Security.
  These are the questions people will be asking themselves when they 
exercise their American civic duty this fall. Americans will have to 
decide: Are trillions in tax cuts for wealthy corporations worth it to 
me if it means that I can't go to the doctor?
  That is why we have to offer real solutions, and we can start by 
paying for these bills today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule because we owe it to our future generations who will have to 
answer for our actions here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First off, Mr. Speaker, let me reference an article from the 
Investor's Business Daily from April 10 of this year. I am quoting 
Investor's Business Daily:
  ``When the Congressional Budget Office released its updated budget 
forecast, everyone focused on the deficit number. But buried in the 
report was the Congressional Budget Office's tacit admission that it 
vastly overestimated the cost of the Trump tax cuts because it didn't 
account for the strong economic growth they would generate.
  ``Among the many details in the report, the one reporters focused on 
was the Congressional Budget Office's forecast that the Federal deficit 
would top $1 trillion in 2020. . . .''
  Most of the news accounts blame the tax cuts.
  I am continuing to quote here:
  ``But there's more to the story that the media overlooked.
  ``First, the CBO revised its economic forecast sharply upward this 
year and next.
  ``Last June, the CBO said GDP growth for 2018 would be just 2 
percent. Now it figures growth will be 3.3 percent''--this was last 
April, Mr. Speaker; I suspect it is probably going to be higher at the 
end of this quarter--``a significant upward revision. It also boosted 
its forecast for 2019 from a meager 1.5 percent to a respectable 2.4 
percent.''

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts are working to boost economic growth. 
Obviously, the story is far from completed, but the revenue generated 
by that increased growth is more than enough to offset the tax cuts 
that were passed by this body last December.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule allows the House to take another step in 
fixing the problems created by the Affordable Care Act and returning 
control of healthcare spending back to patients, where it belongs.
  H.R. 6199, the Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2018, will allow 
those Americans with health savings accounts to use those accounts to 
pay for over-the-counter medications, the practice which existed up 
until the Democrats took away that ability in the Affordable Care Act. 
This is the right thing to do.
  I want to thank Representative Jenkins for her leadership on this 
legislation and the Members who contributed to the package that is 
before us today. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and 
support the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 1012 Offered by Ms. Torres

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. 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. 
     6479) to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 
     to include short-term limited duration plans in the 
     definition of individual health insurance coverage. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6479.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. TORRES. 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

[[Page H7105]]

previous question on House Resolution 1012 will be followed by 5-
minutes votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 1012, if ordered;
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1011; and
  Adoption of House Resolution 1011, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 184, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 368]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     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 (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     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
     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 (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     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
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Black
     Blackburn
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Jeffries
     King (IA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Messer
     Moore
     Noem
     Price (NC)
     Rokita
     Smith (MO)
     Speier
     Walz
     Yoder

                              {time}  1412

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present during rollcall 
vote No. 368 on July 24, 2018. Had I been present, on rollcall vote No. 
368, I would have voted ``no.''
  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

  Mrs. TORRES. 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 229, 
noes 179, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     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 (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     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
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--179

     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
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier

[[Page H7106]]


     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Black
     Blackburn
     Diaz-Balart
     Ellison
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     King (IA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Messer
     Moore
     Noem
     Price (NC)
     Rokita
     Ruppersberger
     Smith (MO)
     Speier
     Walz
     Yoder


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1420

  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.

                          ____________________