[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 2, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2948-H2956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 7, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF 
 UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN 
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
OF H. RES. 271, CONDEMNING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S LEGAL CAMPAIGN TO 
 TAKE AWAY AMERICANS' HEALTH CARE; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
                      MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 7) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces 
     from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been 
     authorized by Congress. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) 
     one motion to commit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 271) Condemning the 
     Trump Administration's Legal Campaign to Take Away Americans' 
     Health Care. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of April 4, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 
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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 274. It provides for the 
consideration under closed rules for S.J. Res. 7, with 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and for the consideration of H. 
Res. 271, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
It also provides suspension authority for Thursday, April 4.
  Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to recognize that today marks 
the 230th anniversary of the Rules Committee being formally constituted 
for the first time.
  Now, the Ways and Means Committee--which my Massachusetts friend and 
colleague, Richie Neal, chairs--likes to point out that they are the 
oldest standing committee in the House. While that is true, I would 
like to remind my friends that the Rules Committee is the oldest 
committee in the House, being first created on this day in 1789 as a 
select committee. So it is especially appropriate that we are on the 
floor today to do some important work before us.
  For the record, Madam Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee can 
celebrate their 230th anniversary on July 24.
  Now that I have cleared that up, the first measure included in this 
rule is S.J. Res. 7, and we are taking action on this because Yemen is 
in crisis. In a country of roughly 28 million people, an estimated 22 
million of them are in need of humanitarian assistance.
  That is 75 percent of the population facing famine, disease, and 
displacement. Half the country is at risk of starvation.
  The famine and disease facing children is particularly sobering. Save 
the Children estimates that as many as 85,000 children under the age of 
5 have died because of hunger and disease since 2015.
  All told, this is one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, the 
site of the fastest growing cholera epidemic ever recorded and the 
biggest food emergency on the planet.
  Yet, it wasn't caused by some natural disaster. It is entirely man-
made, the result of a Saudi-led military conflict. Seemingly every day, 
bombs fall on weddings, hospitals, buses, and homes, as civilian 
neighborhoods are regularly targeted.
  This is not some abstract war happening half a world away. In fact, 
the United States is intimately involved in this conflict. We have 
supported the Saudi reign of terror by providing logistics, 
intelligence, ground support, and midair fueling of bombers. Virtually 
all the bombs that fall on Yemen say ``Made in the United States of 
America.''
  Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, the United States is involved in a 
war in Yemen today. But if our constituents look through the 
Congressional Record, they wouldn't find a vote authorizing it. That is 
because this body abdicated its responsibility to declare war when it 
began 4 years ago.

                              {time}  1230

  Now, we took one of our most sacred responsibilities and handed it to 
the executive branch. It is not the first time we have done it, but it 
is becoming a habit around here. We first let the Bush administration 
decide the contours of our involvement abroad, and that continues 
through the Trump administration today.
  If that wasn't outrageous enough, past Republican Congresses used 
every legislative trick in the book to block Members from even debating 
our role there. On two separate occasions, they went so far as to strip 
War Powers Resolutions related to Yemen of their privilege. It was 
unprecedented.
  But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, this administration and my 
Republican friends were all too content to look the other way when they 
murdered a Washington Post journalist. They lured him into a consulate 
in Turkey, they murdered him, and then they used a bone saw to 
dismember him. We know, based on our intelligence reports, that the 
highest level of the Saudi Government was involved in that terrible 
human rights atrocity, and the Trump administration did nothing. They 
rationalized it. They justified it. They basically turned a blind eye.
  When it comes to human rights, this administration has abdicated its 
moral authority. That should be of concern to everybody in this 
Chamber, whether you are Democrat or Republican, because if the United 
States stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare 
for human rights. If the President of the United States and his 
administration don't want to do it, then we should.
  No Congress should be complicit in abdicating our Article I 
constitutional responsibility. Thankfully, this Democratic Congress is 
doing the opposite. We are reasserting our power, and we are taking a 
stand when it comes to human rights.
  Thanks especially to the dedication of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman 
Engel, Congressman Ro Khanna, Congresswoman Jayapal, Congressman Pocan, 
and the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, we are considering a 
bipartisan measure that makes clear it is time for the United States' 
involvement in Yemen to end. No more excuses.
  This is virtually identical to the resolution we passed in February. 
The difference this time is that this is the first opportunity that 
this House has had to send something on the war in Yemen right to the 
President's desk.
  So I urge all of my colleagues: seize this opportunity. We have a 
constitutional responsibility and we have a moral obligation to get 
this done.

[[Page H2949]]

Don't let any legislative maneuvers deter us from ending our Nation's 
complicity in this humanitarian catastrophe. Let's pass this resolution 
free of changes that would prevent it from going right to the 
President.
  Let me make that more clear: if we change a single word, we will 
derail this resolution.
  Now, the second measure included in this rule is H. Res. 271, in 
response to a war of a different kind: the Republican war on 
healthcare. The Trump Justice Department recently moved in Federal 
Court not only to strike down preexisting condition coverage under the 
Affordable Care Act, but to overturn this law completely.
  If the President succeeds in Texas v. U.S., the protections for 
preexisting conditions will be gone. The Medicaid expansion will be 
nullified. Insurance premiums will skyrocket. I could go on and on and 
on and on.
  Striking down the Affordable Care Act would be a tragedy felt by 
every single American. We would return to the days when our health 
insurance marketplace was like the Wild West, when insurers were free 
to decline or limit coverage because someone had acne, or received an 
organ transplant, or even because they were a victim of domestic 
violence. That is how messed up our system was, and that is the system 
that this President and many of my colleagues want to return to.
  Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand what President Trump and 
his allies in Congress have against Americans getting healthcare. For 
nearly a decade now, they have worked endlessly to sabotage the 
Affordable Care Act through Congress, the courts, and administrative 
actions. Apparently, they are not happy that 20 million people have 
gained healthcare coverage because of this law, or that 130 million 
Americans with preexisting conditions can get care. We should be 
celebrating these advancements. But, instead, some on the other side 
won't be satisfied until the Affordable Care Act is repealed 
completely.
  Now, this Democratic majority has taken a different course. On the 
very first day of this Congress, we brought the full weight of the 
House of Representatives to bear in this lawsuit. As a result, the 
House Counsel has already intervened in this case to protect the 
healthcare Americans depend on.
  Now, this resolution is our chance to speak with one voice against 
the administration's attempts to abolish the ACA. I have seen my 
friends on the other side issue sternly worded press releases and 
strongly worded letters to the administration. But now it is time to 
back up words with votes, and then I hope they will work with us moving 
forward as this majority takes action to reverse the administration's 
healthcare sabotage and strengthen healthcare for every single 
American.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that healthcare ought to be a fundamental 
right for every single person in this country. It is unconscionable to 
me that rather than working with us to strengthen the Affordable Care 
Act and rather than working with us to expand healthcare protections, 
my Republican friends have chosen instead to wipe it out. I don't know 
how anybody could think like that. I don't know what motivates the 
President of the United States and some on the other side of the aisle 
to move in that direction.
  Now we are told by the President that even though he doesn't have a 
plan to replace this, if he succeeds in nulling and voiding the 
Affordable Care Act, he said: Well, we will provide you one in the year 
2021.
  So, Madam Speaker, the man who has spent all of his time trying to 
rip protections away from people with preexisting conditions, the 
person who wants to not allow you to keep your kids on their insurance 
until they are 26, the leader of our country who doesn't believe in 
capping insurance when it comes to people with lifetime illnesses, the 
person who doesn't want to lower the cost of prescription drugs--I 
could go on and on and on and on--says: I want to repeal it, I want it 
gone, I want the courts to null and void it; and then just trust me, 
and then we will come up with some magical plan, some secret plan, 
after the election.

  I don't think the American people are going to fall for that kind of 
nonsense, and they shouldn't because healthcare is not a Democratic 
issue or a Republican issue. It is a moral issue. It is not even an 
issue, it is a value that all of us should share.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support us in 
sending a message loud and clear to the administration that we have had 
enough of their attempts to sabotage the healthcare bill, we have had 
enough of their trying to take health insurance away from the American 
people, and that we are going to stand here and make it very clear that 
we do believe that everybody is entitled to good healthcare in this 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, we are here again considering one nonbinding 
resolution and a second resolution that will never become law. Both of 
these prevent us from focusing on the real business of Congress, which 
is to legislate.
  The first, H. Res. 271, is a resolution condemning the Trump 
administration's recent position in the case of Texas v. United States.
  So let's revisit that for a minute. Republicans are supportive of 
protecting access to health insurance for individuals with preexisting 
conditions. This resolution today will not advance the development of 
any policies to improve healthcare for the American people. There are 
options that the Democrats could have brought to the floor to lower 
healthcare costs and increase access to care; such legislation would 
indeed be worthy of our time. But, instead, we are debating expressions 
that basically amount to political posturing.
  The first vote the Republicans called this year was a motion to 
require legislation protecting individuals with preexisting conditions. 
Surprisingly, the Democrats voted against that previous question. In 
2017, as part of the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, 
Republicans included legislation that would have preserved access for 
those with preexisting conditions.
  Speaker Pelosi has already intervened on behalf of the House in Texas 
v. United States. While the Department of Justice has weighed in, the 
department is not litigating the case. As with every other legal case, 
this will play out in the courts. If Congress must act following the 
final legal decision, certainly we stand ready to do so. In fact, if 
the Democrats wanted to void this case, they know their options. They 
could repeal the individual mandate or they could reinstitute the tax 
on the individual mandate or they could provide a severability clause 
that was somehow left out when the Affordable Care Act was passed the 
first time. But we have seen them do none of those options.
  The legal process will take time, and no Americans will lose access 
to their healthcare while the legal process is being heard. Unlike the 
case of Texas v. United States--which we know will not affect coverage 
because the judge in that case has issued a stay--individuals covered 
by what are known as association health plans may actually lose their 
coverage due to uncertainty in the legal outcome of that case. For last 
week, a Federal judge in the case of the State of New York, et al. v. 
Department of Labor, last week a Federal judge ruled that the 
Department of Labor's final rule on association health plans was not 
legal.
  Association health plans provide employers who otherwise might 
struggle to provide health insurance for their employees to access the 
group market through an association, based either on geography or a 
line of business. The Washington Post recently reported that there are 
initial signs that association health plans are ``offering generous 
benefits and premiums lower than found in the ObamaCare marketplaces.''
  Association health plans have provided additional choices for 
Americans seeking innovative healthcare options, but these choices may 
soon disappear as a result of the lawsuit State of New York, et al. v. 
the Department of Labor.
  The Democrats are using the case of Texas v. United States to delay 
explaining their real ideas. Their real idea is a one-size-fits-all 
healthcare. The so-called Medicare for All would be a terrifying 
reality for our Nation. The Democrats' Soviet style, government-

[[Page H2950]]

run, single-payer healthcare bill would not provide access to quality 
healthcare for Americans. Instead, it would lead to a massive tax 
increase, eliminate private insurance, and bankrupt the already 
dwindling Medicare trust fund.
  Constituents in my district back in Texas are struggling to afford 
their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and I am certain 
that we are not the only ones suffering from high premiums and very 
high deductibles.
  Madam Speaker, what good is health insurance if you are afraid to use 
it because you can't afford your deductible?
  This is an issue that I would actually like to see us tackle. But I 
am confident that a government-run, single-payer system would only 
further deteriorate our Nation's healthcare.
  As the son of a physician who chose to leave Canada because of their 
system of socialized medicine, I worry that the central state control 
of healthcare would further damage the doctor-patient relationship. As 
a physician, I do not believe that the government should hinder a 
doctor's ability to act in the best interest of his or her patient. I 
wish the concept of government dictating a physician's practice and 
decisions was unthinkable, but I find myself here today having to 
deconstruct the idea of further government control of healthcare.

  The House Democratic proposal would implement a global budget, and 
once that has been set, hospitals and institutions would be required to 
stick to that for all outpatient and inpatient treatment.
  What happens if the budget runs out?
  Are the patients simply told: Sorry, we ran out of money, you may try 
again next year?
  Today we should be focusing on the parts of the health insurance 
market that are working for Americans. For example, 71 percent of 
Americans are satisfied with their employer-sponsored health insurance. 
This provides robust protections for individuals with preexisting 
conditions under ERISA law--a 1970 law, not the 2010 Affordable Care 
Act. Quite simply, the success of employer-sponsored insurance is not 
worth wiping out for single-payer healthcare.
  Since President Trump took office--and this is important--since the 
President took office, the number of Americans in employer-sponsored 
health coverage has increased.
  How much has that increased?
  I can't precisely tell you because our Congressional Budget folks 
have not seen fit to give us new coverage numbers.
  But since the President took office, how many people are employed 
that were previously unemployed?
  The number is somewhere between 3 and 6 million, and a significant 
number of those individuals have employer-sponsored health insurance 
who had no insurance before.

                              {time}  1245

  The coverage numbers under President Trump, if the story is ever 
told, have gone up. Today, there is a greater percentage of Americans 
in employer-sponsored health coverage than at any time since the year 
2000. That is why it is astonishing that House Democrats would want to 
abolish that insurance option entirely.
  Instead of building on the success of our existing health insurance 
framework, Democrats' radical single-payer, government-run policy would 
simply tear it down. It would eliminate employer-sponsored health 
insurance, eliminate all private insurance, eliminate Medicaid, and 
eliminate CHIP.
  Existing Medicare beneficiaries would not be exempt from harm, as the 
policy would raid the Medicare trust fund, which is already slated to 
go bankrupt in 2026.
  Our Nation's seniors count on the existence of Medicare for their 
retirement healthcare needs. They have paid into it their entire 
working lives. How are we supposed to inform them that not only do the 
Democrats want to endanger their access to Medicare services, but, 
unbelievably, they will want to increase their taxes also?
  There is no question that this policy could be catastrophic for 
America's patients today and for generations to come.
  At least now there is some degree of honesty. Remember, a previous 
administration said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. 
Now at least there is some degree of honesty.
  You can't keep your doctor. You can't keep your insurance. You can't 
keep your personal liberty. You get nothing. Effectively, it would end 
all the parts of our healthcare system that are, in fact, working for 
the American people.
  Quite simply, single-payer healthcare would be another attempt at a 
one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. We know this: Americans are 
all different. A universal healthcare plan will not meet the varying 
needs of each and every one of us as individuals. Single-payer is not 
one-size-fits-all. It is really one-size-fits-no-one.
  Again, to restate the obvious: Since the beginning of this Congress, 
we have heard it. Through the last Congress, we heard it. Republicans 
support protections for individuals with preexisting conditions.
  Instead of spending our time here today worrying about the judicial 
branch, we could focus on our job as members of the legislative branch. 
We should be actively working to better our healthcare system, not 
spending time taking votes that will fail to accomplish any real 
objective.
  Madam Speaker, the second resolution included in this rule directs 
the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the 
Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.
  We considered this resolution once before. At that time, Republicans 
successfully passed a motion to recommit that declared the House's 
opposition to anti-Semitism. However, this version of the bill does not 
include that important provision, and we are again debating legislation 
that is, in fact, based on a false premise.
  The resolution is fundamentally flawed. United States forces are not 
engaged in hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the Iranian-
backed Houthi forces in Yemen. Previously, the United States was 
providing midair refueling to Saudi Arabia but ceased this assistance 
in November 2018. The United States continues to provide limited 
intelligence-sharing and limited logistics support, which does not 
amount to engagement in hostilities.
  The Trump administration is focused on countering al-Qaida in the 
Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State, mitigating the humanitarian 
crisis in Yemen and assisting our allies.
  The United States does not command, coordinate, accompany, nor 
participate in counter-Houthi operations or any hostilities other than 
those directed at al-Qaida and the Islamic State.
  I might, here, just add: Those activities against the Islamic State 
have been significantly successful over the last 2 years.
  This resolution sets a dangerous precedent. America has a security 
agreement with Saudi Arabia, just as we do with 117 other countries, 
including our NATO allies Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Israel. 
If this resolution were to become law, it could set a precedent that 
could prevent us from assisting allies and prevent us from meeting our 
treaty obligations. Rather than condemning a type of assistance that is 
no longer being provided by the United States, we should be finding 
ways to aid the millions of Yemenis at risk of starving to death.
  Limiting how our forces can engage in the region will only further 
exacerbate this conflict and not help bring it to a conclusion.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have to give the Republicans credit for one thing. 
They are consistent on the issue of healthcare, in trying to avoid 
talking about the issue at hand.
  We are not talking about universal healthcare, although I support 
universal healthcare. We are not talking about Medicare for All, 
although I personally support Medicare for All. We are not talking 
about the Canadian system or the German system or any other system.
  We are talking about preventing this President and his Republican 
allies from null and voiding the Affordable Care Act, thereby taking 
away healthcare protections for every single American. We are talking 
about preventing the President from throwing

[[Page H2951]]

tens of millions of people off health insurance. We are talking about 
protecting the over 100 million people in this country who have 
preexisting conditions. That is what we are talking about.
  I loved it when the gentleman from Texas said that the first vote 
that the Republicans asked for in this Congress was a procedural motion 
to protect people with preexisting conditions. Does the gentleman not 
know that people with preexisting conditions already have protections 
under the Affordable Care Act?

  I mean, it sounds to me--and it seemed to me at the time--that that 
Republican procedural vote was about covering your rear and not about 
serious legislating, about trying to get the American people to believe 
that we really do care about healthcare and we really do care about 
protecting people with preexisting conditions, even though we all know 
here that that is just not the case.
  When I hear the gentleman say that the Republicans care deeply about 
people's healthcare and want to make sure that everybody gets coverage, 
it is just not true. The reason I say that so emphatically is because I 
have been around here for the last few years, and I have watched the 
dozens of votes that the Republicans have brought up, one after another 
after another after another after another, to repeal healthcare 
protections for people in this country without proposing an 
alternative.
  Now, the President is saying: Trust us.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Politico article that just 
appeared that is entitled ``Trump punts health care until after 2020.''

                     [From POLITICO, April 1, 2019]

                Trump Punts Health Care Until After 2020

                  (By Quint Forgey and John Bresnahan)


just last week the president had seemed to go all in on a new effort to 
                           wipe out obamacare

       President Donald Trump signaled Monday that congressional 
     Republicans would wait until after the 2020 elections to vote 
     on a GOP replacement for Obamacare--putting off a presumably 
     savage legislative battle on a hot-button campaign issue 
     until after his re-election bid.
       ``Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn't work. Premiums & 
     deductibles are far too high--Really bad HealthCare! Even the 
     Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which 
     would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved 
     private health insurance,'' the president tweeted.
       ``The Republicans . . . are developing a really great 
     HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles 
     than ObamaCare,'' Trump continued. ``In other words it will 
     be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote 
     will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold 
     the Senate & win . . . back the House.''
       Trump claimed that the as-yet-unseen Republican proposal 
     ``will be truly great HealthCare that will work for 
     America,'' writing online that ``Republicans will always 
     support Pre-Existing Conditions.''
       The unexpected string of tweets added drama to a week that 
     has seen Obamacare return to the fore as a policy issue.
       The president's pledge comes days after his Justice 
     Department endorsed a federal court ruling to eliminate the 
     Affordable Care Act in its entirety, moving to invalidate the 
     landmark health care law despite objections within Trump's 
     orbit from Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and 
     Attorney General William Barr. The ruling by District Judge 
     Reed O'Connor had suggested that the Obamacare statute, which 
     has passed muster with the Supreme Court, was actually wholly 
     unconstitutional.
       The president appeared on Capitol Hill the next day, saying 
     that the Republican Party ``will soon be known as the party 
     of health care.''
       Trump's call to again put Obamacare repeal on the table for 
     Hill Republicans was seen as a potential disaster-in-the 
     making by GOP leaders, who knew their incumbents and 
     candidates were badly hurt by it last November. And it was an 
     invitation to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pound home 
     the issue once more, as she plans to do with a House vote 
     this week condemning the administration's decision not to 
     defend Obamacare in court.
       Trump's efforts to eradicate Obamacare have also endangered 
     some of the administration's health initiatives, such as 
     lowering prices for prescription drugs and combating opioid 
     abuse and HIV.
       In public and private, Republican leaders made clear that 
     they didn't want anything to do with the president's most 
     recent maneuver. They begged Trump to back down and made 
     their displeasure known to other administration officials, as 
     well.
       GOP lawmakers even took the position that if Trump wanted 
     to lay out his own health care proposal, then they would be 
     willing to look at it. But Senate Republicans--facing a tough 
     electoral fight to maintain their majority in 2020--have 
     refused to sign on to a new administration drive before 
     seeing the specifics, giving them room to disavow any Trump 
     proposal if it hinders their own political outlook.
       ``I look forward to seeing what the president is proposing 
     and what he can work out with the speaker,'' Senate Majority 
     Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief interview 
     Thursday, adding: ``I am focusing on stopping the Democrats' 
     `Medicare for None' scheme.''
       McConnell is up for re-election this cycle, as are 
     vulnerable GOP incumbents including Cory Gardner of Colorado 
     and Susan Collins of Maine, who said she doesn't want the 
     Justice Department to push to strike down Obamacare.
       The Affordable Care Act has been a thorn in the side of 
     Republicans since it was enacted in 2010. After the GOP took 
     back the House in the midterm elections that year, GOP 
     lawmakers repeatedly passed legislation designed to repeal 
     Obamacare.
       Once Trump was elected president on a promise of different 
     and better health care options, Republicans seemed on the 
     path to finally scrapping the law, only to see a 2017 
     ``skinny repeal'' effort fail unexpectedly in the Senate. 
     That attempt collapsed when Arizona Sen. John McCain--upset 
     with the irregular way the legislation was being handled--
     stunned his colleagues by voting against it.

  Mr. McGOVERN. The President says: Repeal everything, and then we will 
share our secret plan after the election.
  Give me a break. The bottom line is that the American people want us 
to be on their side, not on the side of big health insurance 
corporations, not on the side of big drug companies. They want us to be 
on their side.
  It wasn't too long ago when people would be provided insurance that 
didn't cover anything. It was junk insurance. There are people on the 
Republican side and people in this White House who are eager to get 
back to those bad old days.
  Stop trying to take away people's healthcare. Stop trying to get in 
bed with corporate interests that basically are fighting every attempt 
to make sure that people have access to good, quality care in this 
country.
  By the way, if they repealed the Affordable Care Act, that repeals 
essential benefits protections, which guarantee that every insurance 
company has to provide you coverage when you get sick. That wasn't 
always the case.
  This is a ridiculous fight that we are having here. I cannot believe, 
after the midterm elections, after it was made crystal clear by the 
American people to the Republicans that they wanted no part of their 
effort to take away healthcare in this country, that here we are doing 
it all again.
  Now, maybe they didn't intend it this way. The President wasn't on 
message and came out for repealing the Affordable Care Act outright, 
and now they have to kind of scramble to try to, again, cover their 
rears. That is what is happening here.
  It is really disillusioning, I think, for people who are observing 
these proceedings that we are back again fighting over whether or not 
people are entitled to good healthcare, whether people are entitled to 
protections under our healthcare laws.
  I think this is a ridiculous fight for the Republicans to be waging. 
But if they want to fight it, they own it. I think they will see, in 
2020, that the American people are having none of it.
  Madam Speaker, on the war in Yemen, we cannot wait. The starving 
children in Yemen cannot wait on this President or on my Republican 
colleagues to do the right thing.
  Just to highlight how bad the war is, here are a few statistics. I 
noticed the gentleman from Texas barely talked about how horrific the 
situation is in Yemen, but let me give you a few statistics.
  Madam Speaker, 130 children under 5 die each day from hunger and 
disease as a result of this war. The number of cholera cases in Yemen 
is 1 million. You heard that right. This is the largest cholera 
outbreak in recent history. Finally, 3-year-olds in Yemen have lived 
through 18,000 air raids already.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement, the bombs that are dropping 
on civilian populations say ``Made in the United States of America.'' 
All of us should be outraged by that, and not only by the Saudi 
Government's behavior in Yemen, but the Saudi Government's behavior in 
general.
  Yet, what is the response by this administration and their Republican 
allies? Send Saudi Arabia more weapons.

[[Page H2952]]

Sell them more weapons. Turn a blind eye to what is going on in Yemen. 
Let's make believe that the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal 
Khashoggi never happened.
  Again, we need to stand firmly on the side of human rights.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, here is one of the uncomfortable truths of the 
Affordable Care Act: Under the law, every Member of Congress was 
supposed to be covered under the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, the 
pay and benefits of a Member in Congress exceed the subsidy limits, so 
these would be unsubsidized healthcare.gov policies. But then-Speaker 
of the House John Boehner, then-Leader of the United States Senate 
Harry Reid, and President Obama himself all intervened. They were 
fearful that Members of Congress might leave.
  There might be a brain drain in Congress--if such a thing was, in 
fact, possible--if Members of Congress were required to put their 
health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, so they created an 
exception for Members of Congress, and Members of Congress only. They 
are the only people in the United States who can do this. There is a 
tax-free subsidy that a Member of Congress can walk into the D.C. 
exchange and get their coverage in the D.C. exchange.
  I rejected that option because: Number one, I didn't think it was 
right. Number two, I didn't think it was legal. I thought it was going 
to be taken away from us. Apparently, no one else shared my concern 
because it still exists.
  It does make me wonder why we would not offer a health reimbursement 
account, and I have brought this up several times in committee, where 
that same tax-free subsidy could be available to any American to walk 
into a health insurance plan of their choosing. Why not give the people 
of the country what Members of the Congress so generously bestowed upon 
themselves?
  I didn't take the option to go into the D.C. exchange. I didn't take 
the option of the tax-free subsidy that went along with it. I bought an 
unsubsidized health insurance plan in healthcare.gov, signed up for it 
October 1, 2012. Many of you may remember that. We were in the process 
of shutting the government down at the time. It was in all the papers.
  I started that process October 1, 2012. The check cleared the middle 
of January 2013. I went that entire time not knowing if I would have 
health insurance in healthcare.gov the next year because I couldn't get 
an answer to any questions.
  You couldn't call the people at healthcare.gov. You would try, and 
you would be put on hold. You would stay on hold for a long period of 
time. You would eventually get to talk to a person. You would get cut 
off. You would have to start all over at the beginning. It was a 
miserable process.
  The point is, Members of Congress should have gone through that. We 
should have had to deal with what we pushed off on the American people, 
at least those people in the individual market.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say you have got to love the Republicans. I mean, they 
have been in charge of this House for 8 years previously. They were in 
charge of the entire government the previous 2 years. They had the 
House, the Senate, and the White House. They didn't even need a 
supermajority in the United States Senate to be able to get whatever 
they wanted through, and they couldn't do it.
  So the bottom line is this: You had your chance. The American people 
rejected your attempt to take away healthcare from millions of people. 
The American people believe people with preexisting conditions ought 
not to be discriminated against by insurance companies, and so they are 
having none of what you are selling here.
  So you can make excuses all you want, but, unfortunately for the 
country, you were in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White 
House for the previous 2 years.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna), who has been a leader on the issue of Yemen, 
and I commend him for his efforts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for his 
leadership in finally bringing up for a vote this resolution on Yemen 
and for the terrific people on his team, Don Sisson; on Speaker 
Pelosi's team, Keith Stern, and Shuwanza Goff; and on Majority Leader 
Hoyer's team, who finally allowed for a vote, with the work of Keane 
Bhatt and Geo Saba.
  Let me explain why this matters. As the chairman alluded to, there 
are 14 million people in Yemen who currently face the possibility of 
famine--14 million.
  I was with Martin Griffiths, the Special Envoy to the United Nations, 
about 2 weeks ago, and he said, if we do not act in the next couple of 
months, that situation will become irreversible.
  The explanation for this famine is pretty simple. The gentleman from 
Texas said we need to get more aid in there. I respect that, sir, but 
the problem is that the Saudis have a blockade on Yemen; they are not 
allowing the aid to get in. Every day we wait, it makes it harder for 
us to reverse the famine.
  So the solution is very simple: We need to have the Saudis lift the 
blockade and let food and medicine get to the people who need it to 
prevent the largest humanitarian crisis and the largest famine the 
world has ever seen.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas said that the administration has 
already stopped the refueling, and in that, he is actually correct. The 
administration has stopped the refueling. But the reason they stopped 
the refueling is precisely because Congress acted, because the Senate 
passed the War Powers Resolution.
  All we are asking to happen now is to codify that policy so that the 
refueling doesn't begin again. That is why this shouldn't be a partisan 
issue. The President should want to sign this War Powers Resolution.
  The gentleman from Texas said, well, what difference will it make if 
we have already stopped? The difference this will make is sending a 
clear, unambiguous message to the Saudis that they can no longer 
continue a policy of intentional cruelty, of trying to have a nation, 
through starvation, submit to their will. That is why this is a 
bipartisan issue. If we pass this, then that message will be heard by 
the Saudis, and that is why we had bipartisan support in the Senate and 
in the House for this resolution.
  The gentleman from Texas said, well, this is going to hurt our 
relationships with Israel or other allies. That is just false. That is 
just false.
  The amendment, the Buck amendment, that was in our resolution, or the 
amendment that is in the Senate resolution, makes it clear that we 
still can have intelligence sharing with any ally and does not touch 
any of our treaties.
  People often say why am I so passionate that, of all the issues, I 
decided to take up Yemen in my first term. I will tell you why.
  In 1943, there was a famine in West Bengal; 3 million people 
perished. My grandfather was in jail in 1943 in India when that famine 
took place. And there was indifference--indifference--by the British 
Government. They let 3 million people die.
  As the United States, we should not allow for another famine, and we 
should do everything in our power, as a House, to stop it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), the Republican leader of the second oldest committee 
in the United States Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Burgess for his leadership on 
healthcare in so many ways.
  Madam Speaker, embarrassingly designed and hastily written by our 
Democratic colleagues, the Affordable Care Act, from day one, has come 
under legal and public scrutiny, and for obvious reasons. This 
disastrous healthcare experiment, written behind closed doors and 
stuffed with special

[[Page H2953]]

interest giveaways, has driven up healthcare costs for millions of 
working families so high that more Americans eligible for the 
Affordable Care Act have rejected it than have chosen it.
  Now, as ObamaCare's ever-increasing failures continue to find their 
way into our courts, Democrats are asking us to condemn the Justice 
Department's handling of this process.
  No matter how Democrats try to frame this stunt, the left is 
misleading the American people with this political and partisan move. 
The continuation, regrettably, of falsehoods that Democrats continue to 
elevate in order to protect this unconstitutional law is really a 
disservice to the Americans and the patients who hope to have 
affordable care. We can and must do better as we work to protect 
patients and lower healthcare costs.
  Madam Speaker, the truth is Republicans, creators of the children's 
healthcare program; creators of part D, the Medicare prescription drugs 
for seniors; creators of Medicare Advantage, are committed to improving 
our healthcare system.

  If the Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, Republicans will 
act to protect those with preexisting conditions. We will work to make 
healthcare more affordable, guaranteeing that folks can see local 
doctors or go to their local hospitals, and we will preserve other 
important provisions, such as no lifetime limits and allowing kids to 
stay on their parents' plans till age 26. These are shared priorities 
that patients and families deserve to have secured.
  If our Democratic colleagues who drafted this flawed law want to join 
Republicans, why not start fresh, this time, both parties working 
together to pass a law that is truly constitutional, that actually 
lowers costs and that will actually protect patients? We welcome that 
conversation with open arms.
  So I am proud to join with my colleague, the Republican leader of the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, to introduce a 
resolution that calls for this Congress to work together to do just 
that, because one thing is crystal clear: Republicans won't let the 
courts take away preexisting protections or let Democrats take away 
your health plan at work.
  I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this political 
stunt so that we can actually start working together toward making our 
healthcare system more convenient and more affordable for families 
across this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, the former chair 
of the Ways and Means Committee. But I just want to remind my 
colleagues again that my Republican friends have been in charge of this 
institution for 8 years. They were in charge for 2 years of the House, 
the Senate, and the Presidency, and they showed us what they were 
about.
  The gentleman says that they are not going to let the courts take 
away protections for people with preexisting conditions. Well, my 
Republican friends tried to do that on dozens of occasions. They 
brought legislation to the floor that would have ripped protections 
away from people with preexisting conditions. That is their record. It 
is there for anybody to see.
  Now they are saying: ``Oh, we are now for protecting people with 
preexisting conditions''? Their whole existence in the majority has 
been about taking protections away from people. Give me a break. I 
mean, people know what is going on here.
  I appreciate the resolution that the gentleman wants to offer to say 
we all should work together. Look, I am happy to work with my 
Republican friends to find ways to improve protections for people.
  But I want to remind them, when they were in the majority, they 
didn't want anything to do with us because we wanted to protect 
people's healthcare. We wanted to protect people with preexisting 
conditions. We wanted to make sure that parents could keep their kids 
on their insurance until they were 26. We wanted to lower the cost of 
prescription drugs. We wanted to put a cap on people with chronic 
illnesses so that they wouldn't go bankrupt. We wanted to make sure 
that insurance companies had to offer you real protections. We had 
essential benefit protections there.
  So we are happy to build on that. What we are not happy to do is to 
work with them to take these things away, and that is what their 
leadership has been all about for 8 years in the House. And then when 
they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, that is 
what they tried to do.
  Thankfully, some thoughtful Republicans in the Senate didn't go along 
with it, so they didn't get their way. And now they are trying to use 
the courts to try to undermine what this body has done.
  Madam Speaker, let me inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many 
more speakers he has.
  Mr. BURGESS. I have as many as I need.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. It will be me.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We were expecting one more speaker, but she didn't show 
up. If the gentleman is ready to close, I am ready to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to move a resolution that reinforces our long-
held views that every American should have preexisting condition 
protections.
  On the opening day of the 116th Congress, House Republicans brought a 
measure to the floor that called on lawmakers to legislate on locking 
in protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, 
in a fit of partisanship, the Democrats blocked this effort.
  If the Democrats were serious, they would take up legislation 
immediately to protect patients with preexisting conditions. Instead, 
Democrats are trying to score political points.
  Our position is simple and clear: Republicans stand ready to protect 
those with preexisting conditions in a manner that will withstand 
judicial scrutiny. This is why, if the previous question is defeated, 
House Republicans will move a resolution that:
  Maintains that no American should have their health insurance taken 
away or lose protections for preexisting conditions due to the 
Democrats in Congress enacting an unconstitutional law;
  Instructs Congress and the Trump administration to immediately ask 
the Court for a stay in this decision;
  Guarantees that no American citizen can be denied health insurance or 
coverage or charged more due to previous illness or health status;
  Includes commonsense consumer protections;
  Provides more choice and affordable coverage than the Affordable Care 
Act;
  Lowers prescription drug prices for patients;
  Strengthens Medicare for current and future beneficiaries; and
  Rejects the Democrats' radical, one-size-fits-all, government-run 
healthcare that would outlaw the employer-based coverage of more than 
150 million Americans.
  Finally, it is important to note that Texas v. the United States, the 
case that is working its way through the courts, did not immediately 
end ObamaCare and will not affect insurance coverage or premiums for 
calendar year 2019. Several legal steps remain before the courts reach 
a final conclusion.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is agreeable, I am 
prepared to close.
  So, in closing, while Republicans stand ready to legislate, we are 
again considering unnecessary resolutions. The first seeks to condemn 
the position of the Department of Justice in Texas v. the United 
States, the case in which the Department of Justice is not a party.
  As I have stated several times, Republicans support protecting 
coverage

[[Page H2954]]

for preexisting conditions. I would hope we could work together to find 
a way to make health insurance affordable for all Americans rather than 
considering a divisive messaging resolution.
  The resolution to remove the United States Armed Forces from 
hostilities in Yemen is not only unnecessary, but may prevent future 
assistance for our allies.

                              {time}  1315

  The brave men and women who are assisting Saudi Arabia in the fight 
against al-Qaida and the Islamic State are working to find solutions to 
the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Yemen, a mission for which 
we should be unified in our support.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, and a ``no'' on the underlying measures.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I just find it a little bit interesting that for the 
last couple of days, my Republican friends have been assailing us for 
introducing a sense of Congress resolution, and here we have a sense of 
Congress resolution from them.
  I guess you can't make this stuff up.
  But in any event, look, I will say to my colleagues, you don't need 
to defeat the previous question to make clear that you believe that 
people with preexisting conditions should be protected, because this 
sense of Congress wouldn't do that.
  We have a law that does that now, a law that, unfortunately, my 
Republican friends have been trying to repeal for years.
  So if Members want to protect people with preexisting conditions, 
then they ought to support us on our sense of Congress resolution.
  So, Madam Speaker, when it comes down to it, both of these 
resolutions that we are offering today are about what this Congress is 
willing to tolerate, whether we are willing to tolerate our Nation's 
involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, despite never having 
authorized it in the first place. Do we really want our Nation to be 
partners with a regime that murders journalists like Jamal Khashoggi?
  President Trump has said of Saudi Arabia: ``They have been a great 
ally.'' Well, I disagree.
  And I hope that this Congress will now speak with one voice that we 
will not look the other way when it comes to the murder of a U.S. 
reporter, that we will not look the other way when it comes to the 
murder of innocent people in Yemen, bombing school buses, bombing 
weddings, bombing funerals.
  Enough. We have to say enough. We are no longer okay with the U.S. 
and Yemen going on unchecked for another year.
  This is about whether this Congress is going to tolerate the 
administration trying to rip away millions of people's healthcare as 
well. I know I am not--and many of my colleagues aren't either--willing 
to tolerate that.
  This morning, I joined with many Members of Congress in the House and 
Senate, including Leader Pelosi and Senator Schumer. We marched from 
the House and the Senate to the Supreme Court to call on this 
administration to stop its assault on Americans' healthcare.
  Abolishing the Affordable Care Act may be just a talking point to the 
President, but this law is literally a matter of life and death for 
people. Millions and millions of Americans could lose their insurance 
coverage. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs could skyrocket, and 
lifesaving healthcare could once again be out of reach.
  The President and his allies claim to support protections for 
preexisting conditions, they claim that the Republican Party is the 
party of healthcare, but their actions say otherwise.
  When this House voted on the first day of this Congress to allow us 
to intervene in Texas v. U.S., more than 190 Republicans sided with the 
President on his brutal assault on Americans' healthcare.
  The majority is not going to stand for it.
  Enough is enough. Enough with the unauthorized wars abroad, enough 
with the assault on people's healthcare.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, this 
rule, and the underlying resolutions.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and unequivocal 
support for the rule governing debate on H. Res. 271 as well as the 
underlying resolution and ask all Members to join me in supporting this 
resolution which condemns the Trump Administration's ongoing legal 
campaign to take away health care from more than 100 million Americans 
and to make health care dramatically less affordable for those 
fortunate enough to be insured.
  I thank Congressman Allred, my Texas congressional delegation 
colleague, for introducing this important resolution.
  As a new member of Congress who unseated an opponent who voted to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times, the gentlemen from 
Texas knows first-hand how important and critical access to affordable, 
high quality, accessible health care available to everyone, including 
those with pre-existing conditions, to the well-being of American 
families.
  Because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the national 
uninsured rate has been slashed from 14.8 in 2012 to 8.89 percent in 
2018.
  Texas has long led the nation in rate of uninsured so the comparable 
rates are 24.6 and 15 percent, respectively.
  Madam Speaker, I distinctly recall a candidate for the highest public 
office in the land saying ``Obamacare is a disaster'' and appealing for 
voters to support him with this question:
  ``What have you got to lose?''
  The question deserves a response so I hope that person, who occupies 
the Oval Office, is listening to my answer.
  The Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' has been an unmitigated 
success to the more than 20 million Americans who for the first time 
now have the security and peace of mind that comes with affordable, 
accessible, high quality health care.
  Madam Speaker, Tip O'Neill used to say that ``all politics is local'' 
so let me share with you how Obamacare has dramatically changed lives 
for the better for the people in my home state of Texas.
  1.874 million Texans who have gained coverage since the ACA was 
implemented could lose their coverage if the ACA is entirely or 
partially repealed or invalidated.
  1.1 million Texans who purchased high quality Marketplace coverage 
now stand to lose their coverage if Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-
cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the lawsuit brought by Republican Governors, 
and now whole-heartedly supported and aided by the Trump Administration 
were to succeed.
  913,177 individuals Texans who received financial assistance to 
purchase Marketplace coverage in 2016, averaging $271 per individual, 
are at risk of having coverage become unaffordable if the Republican 
Congress eliminates the premium tax credits.
  1.1 million Texans could have insurance if all states adopted the 
ACA's Medicaid expansion; these individuals will not be able to gain 
coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates the Medicaid expansion.
  508,000 kids in Texas who have gained coverage since the ACA was 
implemented are also at risk of having their coverage rolled back.
  205,000 young adult Texans who were able to stay on a parent's health 
insurance plan thanks to the ACA now stand to lose coverage if the 
Republican Congress eliminates the requirement that insurers allow 
children to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.
  646,415 Texans who received cost-sharing reductions to lower out-of-
pocket costs such as deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance are now at 
risk of having healthcare become unaffordable if the Republican 
Congress eliminates cost-sharing reductions.
  10.28 million Texans who now have private health insurance that 
covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or 
deductibles stand to lose this access if the Republican Congress 
eliminates ACA provisions requiring health insurers to cover important 
preventive services without cost-sharing.
  Women in Texas who can now purchase insurance for the same price as 
men are at risk of being charged more for insurance if the ACA's ban on 
gender rating in the individual and small group markets is invalidated.
  Before the ACA, women paid up to 56 percent more than men for their 
health insurance.
  Roughly 4.5 million Texans who have pre-existing health conditions 
are at risk of having their coverage rescinded, being denied coverage, 
or being charged significantly more for coverage if the ACA's ban on 
pre-existing conditions is struck down.
  346,750 Texas seniors who have saved an average of $1,057 each as a 
result of closing the Medicare prescription drug ``donut hole'' gap in 
coverage stand to lose this critical help going forward.
  1.75 million Texas seniors who have received free preventive care 
services thanks to ACA provisions requiring coverage of annual wellness 
visits and eliminating cost-sharing for

[[Page H2955]]

many recommended preventive services covered by Medicare Part B, such 
as cancer screenings, are at risk of losing access to these services if 
congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to repeal the ACA.
  The Affordable Care Act works and has made a life-affirming 
difference in the lives of millions of Americans, in Texas and across 
the country.
  This is what happens when a visionary president cares enough to work 
with a committed and empathetic Congress to address the real issues 
facing the American people.
  You want to know why the American people have Obamacare?
  It is because Obama cared.
  The same cannot be said about this Republican president and 
congressional Republicans who have made careers of attacking and 
undermining the Affordable Care Act's protections and benefits for the 
American people.
  I urge all Members to vote for H. Res. 271 and send a powerful 
message to the President and the American people that this House will 
not stand idly by as this Administration tries to take away health care 
from more than 130 million persons.
  Instead, this House will resist by all constitutional and appropriate 
means, including opposing this Administration in the courts and by 
passing the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care 
More Affordable Act of 2019,'' which will lower health insurance 
premiums with strengthened and expanded affordability assistance by:
  1. strengthening tax credits in the Marketplace to lower Americans' 
health insurance premiums and allows more middle-class individuals and 
families to qualify for subsidies;
  2. ensuring that families who don't have an offer of affordable 
coverage from an employer can still qualify for subsidies in the 
Marketplace; and,
  3. providing funding for reinsurance, to help with high-cost claims, 
improve Marketplace stability, and prevent the Administration's 
sabotage from raising premiums.
  The ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More 
Affordable Act of 2019,'' will also strengthen protections for people 
with pre-existing conditions by curtailing the Administration's efforts 
to give states waivers to undermine protections for people with pre-
existing conditions and weaken standards for essential health benefits.
  These improper waivers leave consumers with less comprehensive plans 
that do not cover needed services, such as prescription drugs, 
maternity care and substance use disorder treatment.
  Another way the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making 
Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' protects consumers is by 
prohibiting insurance companies from selling junk health insurance 
plans that do not provide coverage for essential medical treatments and 
drugs, or cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 274

       Strike section 2 of the resolution and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 280), Protecting the health care of all 
     Americans, especially those with preexisting conditions. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX 
     shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 280.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 191, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Abraham
     Correa
     Gabbard
     Mast
     McEachin
     Mooney (WV)
     Perry
     Rush
     Rutherford

[[Page H2956]]


  


                              {time}  1343

  Messrs. RESCHENTHALER and SCALISE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. BASS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Titus). The question is on adoption of 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abraham
     Bergman
     Correa
     Gabbard
     Mast
     McEachin
     Mooney (WV)
     Perry
     Riggleman
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Woodall

                              {time}  1353

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


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 140 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 141.

                          ____________________