[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.
____________________