[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7658-H7667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INCREASING ACCESS TO LOWER PREMIUM PLANS AND EXPANDING HEALTH SAVINGS 
                          ACCOUNTS ACT OF 2018

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1011, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 6311) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of 
qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax 
credit and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance in the 
individual market to purchase a lower premium copper plan, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1011, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-83 is adopted, and 
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6311

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Increasing 
     Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings 
     Accounts Act of 2018''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Carryforward of health flexible spending arrangement account 
              balances.
Sec. 3. Individuals entitled to part A of Medicare by reason of age 
              allowed to contribute to health savings accounts.
Sec. 4. Maximum contribution limit to health savings account increased 
              to amount of deductible and out-of-pocket limitation.
Sec. 5. Allow both spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same 
              health savings account.
Sec. 6. Special rule for certain medical expenses incurred before 
              establishment of health savings account.
Sec. 7. Allowance of bronze and catastrophic plans in connection with 
              health savings accounts.
Sec. 8. Allowing all individuals purchasing health insurance in the 
              individual market the option to purchase a lower premium 
              copper plan.
Sec. 9. Delay of reimposition of annual fee on health insurance 
              providers.

     SEC. 2. CARRYFORWARD OF HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENT 
                   ACCOUNT BALANCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Carryforward of Health Flexible Spending Arrangement 
     Account Balances.--A plan shall not fail to be treated as a 
     health flexible spending arrangement under this section or 
     section 105 merely because the lesser of--
       ``(1) such arrangement's account balance (or any portion 
     thereof) determined as of the end of any plan year, or
       ``(2) the product of the dollar limitation in effect under 
     section 125(i) for such plan year (determined without regard 
     to paragraph (2) thereof) multiplied by 3,
     may be carried forward to the succeeding plan year.''.
       (b) Coordination With Limitation on Salary Reduction 
     Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 125(i) of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Coordination with carryforward of account balances.--
     The dollar amount otherwise in effect under paragraph (1) for 
     any plan year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the 
     excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the amount of any account balance which is carried 
     forward to such plan year from the preceding plan year, over
       ``(B) twice the dollar limitation in effect under paragraph 
     (1) (determined without regard to this paragraph).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 125(i) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``taxable year'' each place it appears in 
     paragraphs (1) and (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection) and inserting ``plan year''.
       (c) Coordination With Cafeteria Plan Limitation on Deferred 
     Compensation.--Section 125(d)(2) of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Exception for health flexible spending 
     arrangements.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a plan to 
     the extent of amounts in a health flexible spending 
     arrangement which may be carried forward as described in 
     section 106(h).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

     SEC. 3. INDIVIDUALS ENTITLED TO PART A OF MEDICARE BY REASON 
                   OF AGE ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEALTH SAVINGS 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(1)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of 
     clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) entitlement to hospital insurance benefits under 
     part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act by reason of 
     section 226(a) of such Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 223(b)(7) of such Code 
     is amended by inserting ``(other than an entitlement to 
     benefits described in subsection (c)(1)(B)(v))'' after 
     ``Social Security Act''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2018, in 
     taxable years ending after such date.

     SEC. 4. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION LIMIT TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 
                   INCREASED TO AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIBLE AND OUT-OF-
                   POCKET LIMITATION.

       (a) Self-Only Coverage.--Section 223(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``$2,250'' and inserting ``the amount in effect under 
     subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)(I)''.
       (b) Family Coverage.--Section 223(b)(2)(B) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``$4,500'' and inserting ``the amount in 
     effect under subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)(II)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 223(g)(1) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subsections (b)(2) and'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``subsection'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``determined by'' and 
     all that follows through `` `calendar year 2003'.'' and 
     inserting ``determined by substituting `calendar year 2003' 
     for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2018.

     SEC. 5. ALLOW BOTH SPOUSES TO MAKE CATCH-UP CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   THE SAME HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Special rule for married individuals with family 
     coverage.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of individuals who are 
     married to each other, if both spouses are eligible 
     individuals and either spouse has family coverage under a 
     high deductible health plan as of the first day of any 
     month--
       ``(i) the limitation under paragraph (1) shall be applied 
     by not taking into account any other high deductible health 
     plan coverage of either spouse (and if such spouses both have 
     family coverage under separate high deductible health plans, 
     only one such coverage shall be taken into account),
       ``(ii) such limitation (after application of clause (i)) 
     shall be reduced by the aggregate amount paid to Archer MSAs 
     of such spouses for the taxable year, and
       ``(iii) such limitation (after application of clauses (i) 
     and (ii)) shall be divided equally between such spouses 
     unless they agree on a different division.
       ``(B) Treatment of additional contribution amounts.--If 
     both spouses referred to in subparagraph (A) have attained 
     age 55 before the close of the taxable year, the limitation 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(iii) which is subject to 
     division between the spouses shall include the additional 
     contribution amounts determined under paragraph (3) for both 
     spouses. In any other case, any additional contribution 
     amount determined under paragraph (3) shall

[[Page H7659]]

     not be taken into account under subparagraph (A)(iii) and 
     shall not be subject to division between the spouses.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2018.

     SEC. 6. SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED 
                   BEFORE ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Treatment of certain medical expenses incurred before 
     establishment of account.--If a health savings account is 
     established during the 60-day period beginning on the date 
     that coverage of the account beneficiary under a high 
     deductible health plan begins, then, solely for purposes of 
     determining whether an amount paid is used for a qualified 
     medical expense, such account shall be treated as having been 
     established on the date that such coverage begins.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to coverage beginning after December 
     31, 2018.

     SEC. 7. ALLOWANCE OF BRONZE AND CATASTROPHIC PLANS IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Bronze and catastrophic plans treated as high 
     deductible health plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `high deductible health plan' 
     shall include any plan described in subsection (d)(1)(A) or 
     (e) of section 1302 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.
       ``(ii) Certain rules not applicable.--Subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) shall not apply with respect to any plan described in 
     clause (i).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2018, in 
     taxable years ending after such date.

     SEC. 8. ALLOWING ALL INDIVIDUALS PURCHASING HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET THE OPTION TO PURCHASE 
                   A LOWER PREMIUM COPPER PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 1302(e) of the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (B) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and adjusting 
     the margins accordingly;
       (B) by striking ``plan year if--'' and all that follows 
     through ``the plan provides--'' and inserting ``plan year if 
     the plan provides--''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``subparagraph 
     (B)'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (b) Risk Pools.--Section 1312(c)(1) of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(c)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and enrollees in catastrophic plans 
     described in section 1302(e)'' after ``Exchange''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1312(d)(3)(C) of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 
     18032(d)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``, except that in the 
     case of a catastrophic plan described in section 1302(e), a 
     qualified individual may enroll in the plan only if the 
     individual is eligible to enroll in the plan under section 
     1302(e)(2)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

     SEC. 9. DELAY OF REIMPOSITION OF ANNUAL FEE ON HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROVIDERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9010(j)(3) of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2019'' and inserting ``December 31, 2021''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31, 
     2019.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I chair the Health Subcommittee at the Ways and Means 
Committee, and I have had the opportunity, like many of my colleagues, 
to hear from physicians, hospitals, and patient advocates. I have heard 
a lot of stories about increased costs, which are exacerbating the 
coverage and access challenges that we currently face.
  There is a broad consensus that healthcare in the United States needs 
to move towards a system that provides greater access to affordable 
care. The question is: How do we get that done?
  The ACA government-approved, government-mandated one-size-fits-all 
insurance has dramatically decreased choice and increased premiums in 
the individual market. We will hear a lot of debate about this today.
  But here is what is happening close to home. Mr. Speaker, in my home 
State, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report 
that shows, between 2013 and 2017, the average monthly premium for 
coverage in the individual market, in Illinois, increased 108 percent, 
or by $3,228 a year.
  I have five counties in my constituency. In two of those five 
counties, there is only one insurer offering plans on the individual 
exchange. That is not a choice. That is a government mandate. That is a 
government monopoly.
  It is time to drive a discussion around empowering individuals and 
their families to make healthcare decisions for themselves based on 
their needs and based on their budgets.
  The policies that are included in H.R. 6311 expand access to 
consumer-directed health plans with tax favored accounts, like health 
savings accounts, HSAs. This bill increases choice, lowers premiums, 
and let's more families save more money to pay for their healthcare 
costs.
  Now, my friends across the aisle will, without question, get up this 
afternoon and say that this bill doesn't do anything to help people. 
That instead of these policies, we should drop everything and work to 
fix the very broken, flawed plan that is the ACA. Well, here is the 
thing.
  There are twice as many people who have an HSA than those who are 
covered under the exchanges. Let me say that again. Twice as many 
Americans are covered under HSAs than under the Affordable Care Act: 
21.8 million people, Mr. Speaker, had a health savings account in 2017, 
and there is only 10.6 million who are enrolled in the exchanges in 
2018--2 to 1.
  The bill makes smart changes to help families save more money pre-tax 
for their healthcare. It changes the so-called use-it-or-lose-it nature 
of flexible spending arrangements, FSAs, by allowing balances to roll 
over to the next year. It doubles the amount of money people can put 
into a health savings account so that they can save enough to cover 
their exposure to out-of-pocket costs, and they are increasingly 
vulnerable to these out-of-pocket costs.
  Now, my friends on the other side may say they want to talk about and 
distract from some of these commonsense solutions and say that somehow 
some subpar insurance is being promoted. Well, even after canceling 
millions of healthcare plans that people had and that people liked, 
notwithstanding the President's promise that if you like your coverage, 
you get to keep your coverage--you remember that, Mr. Speaker--
notwithstanding that, Democrats, God bless them, they still think they 
know what type of healthcare is best for everyone. They haven't learned 
yet that individuals and families are the best ones to make these 
decisions, not politicians and not bureaucrats in Washington.
  We think people should be able to purchase the type of coverage they 
want and the type of coverage they can afford. One of the provisions in 
this bill allows everyone to purchase a catastrophic plan, a plan that 
was designed by ObamaCare. These plans offer the lowest premiums, and 
we think everyone should have access to them.
  Even better, because these plans have average deductibles of $6,000, 
we think we should allow catastrophic and bronze plans to qualify for 
an HSA as well. This means people can get a break in taxes for the 
money that they save for their huge ObamaCare deductibles. This is real 
savings to real people who are struggling under the current healthcare 
law.

                              {time}  1645

  It allows working seniors with HSA-eligible coverage who are enrolled 
in Medicare part A to contribute to an HSA, which can provide an added 
benefit for seniors and an incentive for them to stay on their 
employer-sponsored plan over Medicare, if they choose. It makes perfect 
sense.
  It increases utility and flexibility through allowing both spouses to 
make

[[Page H7660]]

catch-up contributions into the same HSA if they are over age 55.
  Finally, it delays ObamaCare's health insurance tax for an additional 
2 years, which would otherwise increase the cost of insurance premiums 
through a nearly $27 billion excise tax. This is a flawed tax that gets 
passed on to American families who are purchasing in the individual 
market; it gets passed on to seniors in Medicare Advantage; it gets 
passed on to small businesses; and it gets passed on in Medicaid 
programs.
  So I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee members who took that 
effort seriously. I look forward to this afternoon's debate.
  I want to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in driving this 
discussion, and I reserve the balance of my time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2018.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden: I write to you regarding H.R. 6311, 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition 
     of the qualified health plan for purposes of the health 
     insurance premium tax credit and to allow individuals 
     purchasing health insurance in the individual market to 
     purchase a lower premium copper plan.
       The Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported 
     this bill which was also referred to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce. I ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     waive formal consideration of the bill so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House Floor.
       I acknowledge that by waiving formal consideration of the 
     bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is in no way 
     waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in 
     those provisions of the bills that fall within your Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment 
     of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate 
     conference involving this legislation.
       I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this legislation on the House 
     floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Brady,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2018.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady: Thank you for your letters regarding 
     H.R. 4952, the ``Improving Seniors Access to Quality Benefits 
     Act,'' H.R. 6138, the ``Ambulatory Surgical Center (ACS) 
     Payment Transparency Act of 2018,'' and H.R. 6311, the ``To 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition 
     of qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance 
     premium tax credit and to allow individuals purchasing health 
     insurance in the individual market to purchase a lower 
     premium copper plan.''
       The Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo 
     consideration of both bills so that they may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House Floor.
       I appreciate your assurance that by forgoing action on 
     these bills, the Committee is in no way waiving its 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in the bills. 
     I also appreciate your offer of support for the appointment 
     of conferees from the Committee to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Greg Walden,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves: What is this bill all 
about? Why are we here today?
  H.R. 6311 is the final of three bills regarding health savings 
accounts and health taxes that we will be considering this week. I find 
it sad we are not spending our time today addressing the most pressing 
concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet because of the 
Republican sabotage of healthcare coverage.
  Nothing in H.R. 6311, or any other bill we have considered this week, 
undoes the ongoing harm caused by the actions of the Trump 
administration or this Republican Congress.
  For example, earlier this month, the administration created needless 
confusion by refusing to make legally required risk adjustment payments 
until, when there was major protest, it reversed course last night 
under public pressure. But in June, the Justice Department refused to 
defend protection for the 130 million Americans living with preexisting 
health conditions.
  Last fall, the President terminated cost-sharing reduction payments 
for Americans earning 100 to 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. 
The GOP tax bill gutted the individual responsibility requirement, 
causing a 15 percent spike in premiums, according to CBO.
  Recently, the administration again cut funding for navigator 
organizations to just $10 million for the upcoming open enrollment 
period. I saw at home what these navigator provisions meant to 
nonprofit organizations that were reaching out to people who wanted 
information and healthcare.
  Cut, cut, cut is the administration's answer. And this Congress' 
response to that administration action is zero, silence, silence, 
silence.
  These and so many other actions by Republicans have led to direct 
increases in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for middle class 
families.
  Expanding HSAs and shifting more Americans into catastrophic 
coverage, as H.R. 6311 does, will not meaningfully help middle class 
families harmed by Republican sabotage of ACA. Instead, it will 
primarily benefit wealthy Americans and large insurance companies.
  According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 80 
percent of the tax benefit for health savings accounts goes to 
individuals earning more than $100,000 annually. We pointed that out in 
committee.
  What was the response? Obfuscation, obfuscation. That is a fact and 
analysis given to us by the Joint Committee on Taxation. So all these 
crocodile tears for mainly middle class families, I think, are shown 
for what they are.
  Very few families with modest incomes can afford the high, out-of-
pocket expenses required in order to participate in a HSA. Doubling the 
amount that individuals can contribute tax-free--tax-free--as this bill 
does, will make no difference to the millions of working families who 
don't have thousands of dollars available to contribute to an HSA in 
the first place.
  I suggest that everybody go home and talk to the general public.
  In addition, a 2-year delay of the health insurance provider fee will 
have only a minimal impact on premiums. Indeed, this provision will 
mainly benefit insurance companies, while adding more than $25 billion 
to the deficit.
  Not only do the bills we have considered this week not address these 
pressing issues, they also recklessly add to the deficit. Republicans 
have failed to produce even $1 for the enormous cost of these bills. So 
I said to the chairman of the committee that I once chaired, I was 
sometimes asked that question: Will you pay for it? And I said yes.
  I asked the chairman: Will you pay for this? At first, it was said: 
Well, we don't have to do that in committee. So I said: Will you do it 
on the floor, yes or no? He said no.
  So here we are. Although we do not yet have a final analysis from the 
Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, past 
estimates of similar provisions have shown us this:
  H.R. 184, which would repeal the medical device tax, will cost about 
$20 billion over 10 years.
  H.R. 6199, which would expand HSAs to include over-the-counter 
medications and gym memberships, will cost roughly $20 billion.
  And this bill, which expands HSAs and delays a tax on the health 
insurance industry, would increase the deficit the most. This is, in a 
few words, a Risky Roskam bill that would cost up to $50 billion, $50 
billion.
  When all is said and done, our actions this week could add up to $90 
billion to our Nation's debt, increasing pressure to cut vital programs 
like Medicare. This comes just months after a tax cut bill that would 
add an additional $2 billion to the debt.
  So, look, we need to come and ask ourselves: Why are we here?
  These bills will not likely pass the Senate or become law, so here we 
are. We are going to recess, adjourn tomorrow for 5 weeks or so. I 
think the reality is that these bills, which will not likely pass the 
Senate, will not ever become law.
  I think it is likely that they have a different purpose, and I think 
that was described in a recent article in The Hill. I read it because I 
want the public to question what we do, and I quote:
  ``The bills on the House floor next week could give victories to the 
bill

[[Page H7661]]

sponsors who are also vulnerable in November.'' The chairman of the 
subcommittee, where I am ranking member, is facing, this article says, 
``a tough reelection race in his suburban . . . district.''
  ``But overall, the measures slated for consideration are minor and 
won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe Antos, a 
healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.''
  I want to quote that again: ``These measures slated for consideration 
are minor and won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe 
Antos, a healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise 
Institute.''

  So I think that is really what this is all about. It is a political 
exercise. It is aimed to help people who are in a vulnerable political 
position. But that is not a reason to bring up these bills today, when, 
as I described earlier, there are so many issues relating to healthcare 
coverage.
  The Republicans have undertaken these last months under this 
administration to do everything they can to sabotage healthcare for 
Americans. As a result, 3 million people less have healthcare 
insurance. But ACA works so well that 20 million people received 
healthcare coverage they did not have.
  So, this is kind of a sad moment. We are turning this place into a 
campaign entity. We should not be doing that when it comes to 
healthcare coverage. We tried, in recent times, to say to the 
Republicans, if you want to improve ACA, we are ready. Never has there 
been any offer to do that. Instead, it was repeal, repeal, repeal. I 
won't say that 55 times, but that is how often it happened. More 
recently, it was sabotage, sabotage, sabotage. That isn't what we 
should be doing for what is so dear to Americans, healthcare coverage.
  It is a sad day, as I said earlier, that, here we are, when so much 
needs to be done, and this, essentially, is a political exercise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Michigan asked the rhetorical question: Why are we 
here?
  I will tell you one reason why we are here. One reason why we are 
here is I have an independent recollection of being in my car on 
Michigan Avenue in Chicago, listening then to President Obama give a 
speech to, I think it was the American Medical Association. I was 
listening on the radio and he said, I think--I may be conflating here. 
But he said: If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. If 
you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.
  I think, during the course of the healthcare discussion, the Obama 
administration made this explicit promise to the American people: You 
are going to save $2,500 per family. And it was going to be great. It 
was going to solve all the problems. Yet, that didn't happen. That is 
why we are here.
  I have a constituency where two counties have one insurer. That is 
why we are here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen) to tell us why we are here.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up, there are too many 
families that continue to suffocate under the high premiums and high 
deductibles that we have from the Affordable Care Act.
  In contrast to the top-down, one-size-fits-all approach of ObamaCare, 
healthcare savings accounts put consumers in charge of their own 
healthcare. It is no wonder they are gaining in popularity.
  Today, nearly 22 million Americans have health savings accounts. That 
is twice as many as was mentioned earlier, twice as many as the number 
of people who are getting plans through the ObamaCare exchanges. That 
is not even close. In Minnesota alone, more than a million, 1.2 
million, people and families are eligible for HSA plans.
  Now, the bill before us today supports the continued growth of 
healthcare savings accounts and includes a couple of provisions that I 
helped author, including allowing working seniors to contribute to an 
HSA, increasing the limits that individuals and families can contribute 
to their HSAs, and allowing married couples the opportunity to make 
larger catch-up contributions to their own healthcare savings accounts. 
Then it also creates a grace period to help pay for medical expenses 
that someone may have incurred before they actually set up their 
healthcare savings accounts.
  These are all important improvements that will help provide value in 
healthcare and help lower prices.
  So let's let people purchase the type of coverage that they want and 
that they can afford. I am really pleased that the bill before us makes 
these very smart, strategic, calculated reforms, and I ask my 
colleagues for their support.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the so-called fact that more people have 
HSAs than those who are covered by ObamaCare. That simply is not true.
  ObamaCare includes expanded Medicaid. So if you want to talk about 
more than in the exchanges, we can discuss that and argue it, but don't 
come here and minimize the impact of ACA.
  We worked hard on it. We meet so many people who have benefited from 
what we Democrats did, and the public, more and more, is expressing 
that. You were on the wrong side of history, and you are now on the 
wrong side of public opinion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, or more if he would like, to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), an active member of our 
committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, health savings accounts, while 
they may help people manage their healthcare costs marginally, the sad 
truth is this legislation will do nothing--nothing--to lower healthcare 
costs and to improve healthcare quality.
  The legislation also does nothing--nothing--to protect people with 
preexisting conditions, and 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 
50 and 64\1/2\ have preexisting conditions.
  The legislation before us will increase the deficit by tens of 
billions of dollars and will threaten the long-term viability of 
Medicare and Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, because of recent actions by the Trump Justice 
Department and House Republicans, millions of Americans between the 
ages of 50 and 64\1/2\ who buy their health insurance on the individual 
market are about to get clobbered with double-digit multiyear health 
insurance premium increases, and this Congress is doing nothing--
nothing--to help. This population needs the protection of Medicare now.
  Medicare at 50 would allow people to buy Medicare as their health 
insurance. Medicare is Affordable Care Act compliant, with essential 
benefits, has high patient satisfaction ratings, has full access to 
primary care and physician specialists, and always, always covers 
preexisting conditions. Medicare at 50 also is thousands of dollars 
cheaper when compared with the gold plan on the individual market.
  Mr. Speaker, Medicare is the best public option that already exists, 
and the best public option that already exists should be available to 
millions of Americans ages 50 to 64\1/2\.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6311, the 
Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings 
Accounts Act.
  This important bill contains a 2-year delay of the health insurance 
tax, or HIT. Like the medical device tax, which the House voted 
yesterday to repeal, the HIT is yet another damaging tax from 
ObamaCare. It raises premiums for families, for small businesses, for 
seniors, and for the disabled enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In fact, 
the HIT could raise annual premiums for the typical Medicare Advantage 
couple by $500 if it returns in 2020.
  I am a proud original cosponsor, with Representatives Noem, Sinema, 
and Bera, of H.R. 5963, which delays the HIT for 2 years, and I am 
thrilled this bill we are voting for today includes it.
  I look forward to the day when we can finally repeal this tax that 
falls on the backs of seniors, the disabled, small businesses, and 
hardworking families, but until then, I urge my colleagues to support 
delaying it.

[[Page H7662]]

  

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is so active and there all the time.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 6311, which, contrary to its name, would do very 
little to help Americans access quality healthcare coverage. Instead, 
it would force families to accept low-quality, catastrophic health 
plans, or junk coverage, that does not meet healthcare needs and leaves 
ordinary Americans to foot the bill when something goes wrong.
  What does a catastrophic and high-deductible plan mean? Well, it is a 
disaster for many.
  Recent studies have shown that 40 percent of Americans cannot afford 
even a $400 emergency expense, let alone the thousands of dollars 
necessary for a medical emergency, which could happen to any of us, but 
that is the plan Republicans are offering. Americans would get a plan 
that is substandard. No one wants to have health coverage that doesn't 
actually cover much at all.
  What is more, these catastrophic and high-deductible health plans are 
especially harmful to women. Since 50 percent of the pregnancies in the 
United States are unplanned, many parents in these plans will not have 
saved enough to cover these high deductibles or unexpected costs. 
Furthermore, most pregnancies last 9 months and, thus, span more than 
one plan year. That means during the course of a single pregnancy, a 
mother in one of these plans would have to hit her deductible twice.
  Maternity care services without complications can average around 
$10,000 per pregnancy. What would happen in a pregnancy with 
complications?
  The Affordable Care Act was passed so that we could move away from 
junk plans that offered nothing in terms of coverage and left people 
with thousands of dollars in medical debt. This bill is just another 
attempt to undermine the ACA, and we cannot go back.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every time today we hear the phrase ``junk coverage,'' 
think ObamaCare. And I am not trying to be facetious, because there is 
nothing in this bill that makes any change to any coverage. I could 
only assume that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) is 
referring to the catastrophic coverage that was part of the ACA.
  All we are doing today is saying, with that coverage, they ought not 
be alone. They ought not just be out on an ice floe all by themselves. 
People who have that type of catastrophic coverage that our friends, 
when they were in the majority, created, those people should simply 
have access to a health savings account.

  What is not to love about that?
  So when you hear ``junk coverage,'' just be dismissive of that. It is 
a talking point, and it is not particularly persuasive. Who is 
persuasive is the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health 
Savings Accounts Act.
  This bill gives all Americans the option to purchase a catastrophic 
plan if they so choose, which, under current law, is restricted to a 
limited population. This bill will increase health insurance plan and 
pricing options as we continue our work to address the underlying 
problems of ObamaCare.
  Nebraskans continue to tell me that they are desperate for more 
options to buy health insurance for their families. We are down to only 
one insurer in Nebraska, in Nebraska's exchange; and with premiums for 
a family, which can exceed $30,000 before even factoring in four- and 
five-figure deductibles, families need more options, Nebraskans need 
more options.
  The way to create access to healthcare for more people is by 
understanding better the buyer-seller relationship.
  If you want to reduce costs through increasing participation, whoever 
is doing the selling must create products the consumer is willing to 
buy. The more barriers are wedged between the buyer and seller, the 
more transparency and competition will decrease and the more healthcare 
costs for consumers will increase.
  It is obvious that ObamaCare policies, which have restricted choice 
through one-size-fits-all requirements for insurance products, continue 
to fail, and this bill will help give Nebraskans and all Americans the 
choices they need and deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roskam for bringing us this bill, and I urge 
support for it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), a true fighter.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare, that is what we are talking 
about today.
  What is TrumpCare? Well, it is not much care. In fact, it is mainly 
indifference from people that don't really care or understand the 
plight of thousands of families across this country working to make 
ends meet, and suddenly somebody has an accident on the way home from 
work or suddenly a child is diagnosed with some dreaded disease, and 
they face, without access to affordable health insurance, a 
catastrophe.
  We know that there are a significant number of American families that 
have said they couldn't meet a $400 or $500 emergency. Think about what 
happens to them when they face a $4,000 or a $40,000 healthcare bill. 
That is what the Affordable Care Act has been all about.
  So today we see the chapter in the TrumpCare story that Mr. Roskam 
and his colleagues are offering for Trump and all of his cohorts. And 
what is it? It is the 5 percent solution, because we know that health 
savings accounts have been used by exactly 5 percent of those who earn 
less than $100,000.
  So, as usual, the Trump approach is let's do more for the few, and to 
heck with the many, the many people who are out there for whom health 
savings accounts provide little or no protection.
  Now, of course, it is a valuable tax shelter for some people who are 
a little bit more prosperous in our society, and that is fine, but I 
believe we need to make healthcare accessible to more people.
  And then there is the additional problem that Mr. Roskam and his 
colleagues have decided to pay for their package of bills, $100 billion 
of bills, by borrowing just a little bit more. After all the trillions 
of dollars that they have borrowed from the Saudis and the Chinese and 
people here at home, wherever they can find somebody who will take 
their IOU, they want to borrow a little more money, $100 billion, 
almost, to finance this package of bills to help that 5 percent of the 
families who earn less than $100,000.
  I offered an amendment, recognizing that it wouldn't correct all the 
flaws of TrumpCare, but that it would address one central problem, and 
that is the problem of preexisting conditions.
  What is a preexisting condition? Well, it is whatever an insurance 
company wants to point to to deny you coverage before the Affordable 
Care Act.
  I do think that our Republican colleagues are afflicted with a very 
serious preexisting condition. It is called amnesia. They have 
forgotten what healthcare was like for families before the Affordable 
Care Act came into existence and prohibited these preexisting 
conditions not only for those who went to the marketplace, but across 
the board, to prevent preexisting conditions from being used against 
someone to deny them coverage or to limit the coverage that they got.
  The kind of people whom I came in contact with as we worked on the 
Affordable Care Act who were determined to have preexisting conditions 
were a victim of domestic violence, someone who was born with a 
disability, and someone who had an accident or an illness and found 
themselves with some lingering effects of that. They would either be 
denied coverage altogether, or they would find in the fine print of 
their insurance policy significant limitations on that insurance. The 
insurance would cover them for everything except what they needed 
insurance for.
  Now, after the Republican attempt--and not just one, but 60 or 70 
attempts--to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed in the United States 
Senate, thanks to the courage of a few there and of the many across 
this country who said, ``We don't want it repealed,''

[[Page H7663]]

now that it has failed, they have devoted the last year to doing 
everything in the book to try to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.
  They won't stabilize health insurance markets. They won't focus on 
reducing premiums. They won't focus on strengthening and correcting any 
of the shortcomings within the Affordable Care Act, like the need to 
rein in the prescription drug price gouging.
  So instead of expanding accessible coverage, what they do is to 
expand a healthcare tax shelter for a few people.
  Having done so much harm, they tell us today that they are not 
advocating junk insurance. Well, let's talk about junk insurance, 
because I think they are right in the junkyard on it.
  President Trump's administration is out there telling the courts that 
they cannot defend the protections in the Affordable Care Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, they can't defend, and they refuse to 
defend, the preexisting conditions provisions that protect, in Texas, 
it is almost half of the population who are said to have some type of 
preexisting condition.

                              {time}  1715

  So the administration won't protect those with preexisting 
conditions. They are hoping to erode that protection. And when I 
offered a one-paragraph amendment, Republicans refused it without any 
decent explanation in our committee to ensure that the preexisting 
condition provision was in any policy that would be purchased under 
this plan.
  So what you will be left with, as my colleague from California 
explained, are junk insurance plans. They are the kind that promise 
great coverage, but down in the fine print of the policy, you don't 
have coverage when you need it. They are skinny insurance plans that 
aren't about the size of the person, but the size of the coverage, that 
it doesn't cover very much. And those kinds of plans are the kind that 
we will end up having.
  We have a saboteur-in-chief, not only when it comes to our military 
alliances and our friends abroad but, with this President, with 
reference to healthcare. These bare-bones, junk insurance policies will 
not get the job done.
  I think of the many people whom I represent in central Texas, and I 
am sure they are not unlike people in the suburbs of Chicago.
  They are people like Colleen, who is a bookkeeper. She adopted her 
son through the foster care system when he was 18 months old. Unknown 
to her, he had a preexisting condition; and she learned that she had a 
preexisting condition. And as she said: ``The Affordable Care Act made 
my family possible.''
  I think of people like Theresa in San Antonio, who says that, before 
the Affordable Care Act, she found herself repeatedly digging out of 
medical debt because of a preexisting condition.
  I think of a constituent who called me during the debate of the 
Affordable Care Act because her sister could not get coverage for 
cancer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, her sister could not get coverage. Though 
she had substantial chemotherapy coverage, it was not enough to cover 
the full amount of the treatment that she needed.
  We cannot go back. These folks would drag us back along with the 
chief saboteur of healthcare in this country. We don't want to return 
to the fine print restrictions, to the clever caveats. We need 
comprehensive coverage.
  The Affordable Care Act can be made better, and I believe we are 
going to have a Congress that will do just that if we defeat this 
effort.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the 5 percent solution. So, if you are 
in the 5 percent, you need a solution. Five percent of this country is 
millions of people who are in HSAs.
  And the characterization of something as a tax shelter, as the 
gentleman from Texas just characterized, is a completely loaded and 
pejorative term.
  So where do we go for some level of clarity? Let's go to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, and the question that was posed to them was: 
Show us the tax returns of people who take advantage or who are in a 
health savings account.
  In 2015, 71 percent of returns reported an income of $200,000 or 
less. Are those rich people? I don't think so. And, in addition, 28 
percent reported income of $75,000 or less.
  So the hyperbole, the overstatement, the mischaracterization, I think 
is ``rich.''
  And did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? I laid out the President's 
promise: You like your coverage, you get to keep your coverage. You 
like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. And we are going to save 
$2,500 per year per family.
  There has been silence on the other side of the aisle, and I predict 
that that won't be answered all afternoon. Do you want to know why? 
Because there is no answer.
  For real answers, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
6311. This bill makes a number of welcome changes to our broken 
healthcare system to put patients back in charge of their healthcare.
  I have been a physician in rural east Tennessee for over 30 years. 
Mr. Speaker, we heard about how the tax bill had caused these premiums 
to go up. Let me tell you what has happened in the State of Tennessee. 
Since the ACA took place, the number of options went down and the 
premiums have gone up, on average, 175 percent.
  Let me say this: In the hospital where I practiced, a university 
hospital, the majority of people with uncollectible debt are people 
with insurance.
  Let me say that again. The majority of uncollectible debt are people 
with insurance.
  Why? Because the out-of-pockets and copays are so high that they 
can't afford it. And that is one of the reasons we need this bill.
  And let me say, also, that a year ago I was facing a major operation, 
Mr. Speaker, a cancer operation. I had the ACA insurance. I looked at 
what my out-of-pocket was, what my copays were, what my premiums were, 
and what my employer, the taxpayers of this country, paid for me. I 
would have been better off if I had just written a check for the cost 
of that cancer operation that I had. I had an insurance card. I didn't 
have insurance coverage. That is what I had with the ACA so-called 
insurance.
  Now that the mandate is gone--I want to say this--we heard: Oh, 
goodness, the sky is falling because premiums are going to go up. In 
Tennessee, our premiums actually went down 10 percent from the major 
insurer in the State, Blue Cross, and for that we are eternally 
grateful in my State.
  What we want, now that the mandate has gone, this bill will help 
create a more affordable copper plan option which will allow the tax 
credit recipients to use their credit to pay for coverage. This is 
something we should look at to expand. In fact, Senator Alexander and 
Congressman Duncan have introduced legislation which would allow 
consumers to purchase an off-market plan when there are limited 
options.
  In my district, in the First District of Tennessee, almost as many 
people, within a few hundred, paid the penalty tax, whatever Justice 
Roberts wanted to call it, as actually got a subsidy. Almost as many 
people paid it. So what good is it?
  All of these changes are long overdue. Americans have dealt with the 
crushing costs associated with ObamaCare, and we are trying to give 
them as much relief as possible. By passing this bill today, we will 
return control to patients to determine what level of coverage is best 
for them and their families rather than the government making an 
arbitrary decision for them.
  If we had a system of healthcare in this country where it was patient 
centered and market driven, these changes would be unnecessary. 
Instead, we still have a top-down, government-knows-

[[Page H7664]]

best approach to healthcare that continues to cost folks all across the 
country more than they can afford.
  I support the provisions in this bill because I have worked very hard 
to get to it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I will finish by saying that the 
current system under ObamaCare is unsustainable, and we must increase 
affordable options or the system will collapse.
  Finally, I will put it this way: We need to put patients and 
doctors--no insurance companies and bureaucrats--in charge of 
healthcare decisions in this country. That is what a health savings 
account does, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Stivers).
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6311, and more 
specifically, I rise to support bipartisan language to make flexible 
spending accounts flexible.
  While 44 percent of Americans have access to flexible spending 
accounts, flexible spending accounts have not been flexible. There are 
two problems:
  Under ObamaCare, flexible spending account contributions were capped 
at $2,650. And while the average American spends more than $5,700 in 
out-of-pocket healthcare costs, it is just not enough.
  The second problem is flexible spending account rules make people use 
it or lose it at the end of the year, and they can't roll over their 
money. They have to spend it on things they don't need or they have to 
lose that money.
  Our bipartisan solution solves those problems by doing two things:
  First, it increases the limit on FSA accounts by a multiple of three 
to $7,950. And I did the math for the ranking member. That total would 
be, over 3 years, if you wanted to save $50 a week, you could 
accumulate $7,950. Obviously, that would be if you weren't using it, so 
it would probably take longer than that to accumulate that kind of 
money. But, again, that is well over the average of $5,700 of out-of-
pocket expenses that the average American has.
  And, by the way, while flexible spending accounts are accessible to 
people, one of the reasons people like them is they make out-of-pocket 
expenses more affordable for individuals because those contributions 
are pretax dollars.
  The second thing our bipartisan language does is it allows the 
balance to be rolled over at the end of the year up to that $7,950 
limit. The rollover provision keeps people from losing their money or 
making healthcare expenses that are wasteful at the end of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the flexible spending 
account language and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 6311.
  This bill does no favor for the average working American. This is yet 
another bill to sabotage the Affordable Care Act and make healthcare 
more expensive for those who need it the most.
  Expanding these health savings accounts, which are simply investment 
accounts, doesn't cover basic healthcare. It does not help the average 
American who needs true healthcare.
  This Republican legislation will not help my constituents in 
Michigan. It does not serve the need of access to healthcare for 
America's most vulnerable. The bill does not serve seniors either. It 
hurts them by drawing Medicare recipients into high-cost care.
  In Michigan, 92 percent of Medicare beneficiaries make under $50,000, 
and 14 percent are Black seniors who live below the poverty line. We 
know seniors can't afford this.
  We also know this bill will drain more money from Medicare by adding 
$60 billion to the deficit.
  We need affordable care for everyone, not unaffordable health plans 
for a few. This bill would destabilize and destroy affordable 
healthcare.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is destructive at 
all. The entire structure of the bill is invitational. The bill 
presumes the status quo in terms of the Affordable Care Act, and it 
allows people to get in sync with the Affordable Care Act, and it 
allows them to save money in a tax-free manner.
  I am really surprised at the hyperbole, the overstatement, and the 
over characterization. Nobody has answered either, Mr. Speaker, if you 
will notice, my admonition about the characterization of junk 
insurance. To attribute that claim, which we have heard from a couple 
of speakers this afternoon, against this bill is to attribute that 
claim and that criticism against the ACA, because the underlying bill 
matches exactly what the ACA purports, that is, catastrophic coverage. 
It simply says, if you have that coverage and your deductibles take 
your breath away, good news; you can save on a tax-free basis.
  So I think, with all due respect to the talking point writers and all 
due respect to the critics of this bill, I think the entire debate 
would be uplifted somewhat if we were debating the actual bill that is 
before us instead of tweets and news feeds and so forth.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, I think back some years ago when we were 
working on ACA. It was one of our proudest achievements. The 
Republicans, from day one, were determined to destroy it. ACA can be 
made better, but destruction is not improvement.
  This bill, when you put it together, is not only unpaid for, but 
would be a step to try to undermine the basic thrust of the ACA, to 
replace these basic provisions with something much less.
  In a word, the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, and the 
clock is ticking.

                              {time}  1730

  These bills, when you put them all together, essentially say, these 
are another way to undercut ACA. This is a very, very weak--and I think 
worse than a weak set of alternatives. They have never been able to 
come up with a comprehensive bill, and this effort is the opposite. As 
we have mentioned, relatively few people with lower income can access 
these. So many of the people who access HSAs are people who can afford 
it.
  We can make it better. But don't come here when you have had no 
alternative to say that this is something that could replace ACA. You 
don't pay for it. You are reckless. This, as I said earlier, is a 
reckless bill of the chairman of our subcommittee.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this and to not be fooled. We 
Democrats come to the floor with a sense of being on the right side of 
history. What is happening in this country is that more and more of the 
public acknowledge it. Compared to when we first started, I remember 
going back home, there was so much opposition, so much misguided. But 
when people--20 million--for the first time, in most cases, had 
healthcare, the clock began to tick in the direction of universal care.
  You are trying to turn back the clock, you Republicans, but it is 
ticking more and more towards universality. That is what is happening 
in this country. And this is becoming part of the bedrock, the 
foundations of care and of provisions for the benefit of the American 
people as Social Security was, as Medicare was, and as Medicaid was.
  You are going to pay the price for your blind opposition. The public 
is more and more aware, as their eyes have been opened and as their 
health has been protected, what this has meant to millions of families 
in this country--millions. I run into it every day I go home, people 
who come and say: Without healthcare coverage,

[[Page H7665]]

where would I be? Not only financially, but where would I be and what 
is so dear to me, my health and the health of our families and the 
health of our kids?
  I urge we Democrats to stand up tall and say to the American public: 
The ACA was a major historic step in the right direction. The 
Republicans continue to try to destroy it. History is showing that, 
once again, they were moving in the wrong discretion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we reject this bill and move proudly 
forward. We put together this step. We are going to continue to move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I served on the Ways and Means Committee when the ACA 
was passed, and I recall then-minority ranking member Dave Camp from 
Michigan, who went on to become the chairman later, offered an 
alternative to the ACA.
  He inquired of then-chairman Rangel: When are we going to get to the 
Republican alternative? When are we going to get to the Republican 
alternative?
  I remember this because I was sitting--I think I had the same seat 
that Mr. Higgins from New York has--down in front on the left side of 
the dais.
  Charlie Rangel evoked an old gospel song. He said: Soon and very 
soon, which is why I remember.
  Now, soon and very soon never came for that amendment. Soon and very 
soon never came for the Republican alternative to be considered in the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Now what we are dealing with is the reality of the Affordable Care 
Act. Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing is to say: Look, we have got 
some suggestions; we think we can make this better.
  Is this reckless? I think not. I fundamentally reject that. When you 
accept the entire premise of the current structure of the Affordable 
Care Act, and you take something that pre-existed within the Affordable 
Care Act, that is health savings accounts, and you attach it and you 
expand it, where is the defensiveness?
  This is what is amazing to me about this debate. This is why our 
country is stuck. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
created the Affordable Care Act, and it is orthodoxy. To take it on and 
to try to make improvements--they say they want improvements.
  They say: Oh, let's work together.
  All afternoon with Ms. Jenkins here on the House floor, she was 
managing time of bills that were bipartisan in nature, bipartisan as 
they went through the committee, but you got none of that veneer of 
bipartisanship as they were discussed on the floor. They were perceived 
as a direct attack at what? Orthodoxy.
  So notwithstanding the invitation to work on both sides of the aisle, 
the other side is making it very clear that they are unwilling to take 
the structure of the ACA, to take favorable tax treatment and help more 
people save their own money and spare themselves the results of a law 
that our friends on the other side of the aisle said that you could 
keep your doctor, you could keep your coverage, and you would save 
$2,500 per person--and, again, I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, did you notice 
there was no answer to that charge this afternoon?
  I laid it out twice and now a third time; and absolute silence.
  Why? Because they oversold. Now when they have got friends on this 
side of the aisle who are saying: Look, we can improve this. Let's work 
here. No, we don't like the ACA, but we can work through some of these 
things, then, all of a sudden, it is stiff-arm. Then, all of a sudden, 
it is insincere. Then, all of a sudden, it is political.
  This is good work, this is serious work, and it is work that is 
designed to bring relief to people who are suffering, who have no 
interest in the nature of a donkeys-and-elephants debate on the House 
floor. Most people's eyes glaze over.
  Most people say they want remedies. This is a remedy that makes 
sense. This is a remedy in sync with the ACA in some ways. The 
responses we have heard from the other side I don't think are 
persuasive.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 6311, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1011, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Ms. Frankel of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6311 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 10. RESTORATION OF MEDICARE TRUST FUND SOLVENCY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
     amendment made by this Act shall take effect until the annual 
     reports of the Board of the Trustees of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund established under section 1817 of the 
     Social Security Act and the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund established under section 1841 of the 
     Social Security Act indicate the reduction of solvency of 
     such trust funds by reason of Public Law 115-97 (and the 
     amendments made thereby) have been reversed.

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion will make this bill much better. It is going 
to delay this legislation from going into effect until we clean up one 
of the messes caused by the Republican tax scam, the big giveaway to 
the richest few in this country at the expense of most Americans.
  Now, listen to this. The 2018 Medicare trustee report predicts that 
the Medicare trust fund will be depleted in 2026--3 years earlier than 
predicted in last year's report.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this? Not a big surprise. The $2.3 trillion 
Republican tax cut for the benefit of corporations and billionaires has 
shortchanged the longevity of the fund that pays for the healthcare of 
58 million seniors. It is called Medicare, a program that celebrates 
its 53rd year anniversary this month, a system that seniors have spent 
a lifetime paying into.
  Just ask Eve in my hometown of West Palm Beach who relies on skilled 
nursing care, like the 1.8 million Eves in this country; or Irving in 
Delray, who had his prostate removed. Like Irving, 6.6 Americans rely 
on Medicare to pay for their hospital visits every year.
  Medicare helps to keep our grandmothers and grandfathers healthy and 
repair them when they are sick. It allows men and women who raised 
families and built their country to retire in dignity without paying 
every last dollar for their needed well-care visit, their blood 
pressure medicine, or their hip replacement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the folks 
whom we love and who love us, take the time to fix this legislation, 
and put the money back into the Medicare trust fund, that was cruelly--
I say cruelly--stolen by the Republican tax scam, the giveaway to the 
richest 1 percent and the big corporate interests.
  Let's keep Medicaid alive and well. Please support this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page H7666]]

  

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject this motion to recommit.
  The hospital insurance trust fund isn't going to be insolvent purely 
because we are freeing Americans from the individual mandate. This 
crisis has been going on for decades.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. 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 the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on:
  Passage of H.R. 6311, if ordered; and
  Passage of H.R. 6199.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187, 
nays 229, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 375]

                               YEAS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     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
     Eshoo
     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
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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

                               NAYS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     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)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     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
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     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
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cramer
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Frelinghuysen
     Hanabusa
     Maloney, Sean
     Palazzo
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1807

  Messrs. REED, KINZINGER, MacARTHUR, RUSSELL, BRAT, BISHOP of Utah, 
and RICE of South Carolina changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SOTO, Mses. JAYAPAL and BROWNLEY of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 
Messrs. O'HALLERAN and GOTTHEIMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 375.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 242, 
noes 176, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 376]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     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
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     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
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger

[[Page H7667]]


     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     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.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     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--10

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cramer
     Ellison
     Hanabusa
     Maloney, Sean
     Palazzo
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1813

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________