[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3752-3759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3826, ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND 
   AFFORDABILITY ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118, 
   SUSPENDING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PENALTY LAW EQUALS FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 497

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any 
     greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
     generating units, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-40. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the implementation 
     of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual 
     health insurance mandate. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill 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 Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1230

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 497.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 provides for consideration of 
two bills, one of which addresses the country's worsening health 
insurance situation due to the Affordable Care Act; the other addresses 
the Environmental

[[Page 3753]]

Protection Agency's attempts to cripple our economy with costly 
regulations which have dubious health benefits.
  The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, 
controlled by the primary committee of jurisdiction. The committee made 
in order every amendment submitted for consideration to H.R. 3826, the 
Electricity Security and Affordability Act, including three amendments 
offered by Democrats and five amendments offered by Republicans. 
Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on 
each bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the 
legislation. This is a straightforward rule for consideration of two 
very important bills.
  H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a 
bipartisan response to the Environmental Protection Agency's 
wrongheaded approach to our energy future. It was carefully crafted by 
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and the Republican 
chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Ed Whitfield from 
Kentucky. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to 
acknowledge within its greenhouse gas regulations that different 
sources of fuel--such as natural gas, such as coal--require different 
approaches to the regulatory sphere. Further, it prevents the 
Environmental Protection Agency from unilaterally imposing new 
regulations on existing power plants--those power plants that are 
already up and running, providing heat to our Nation, which is 
currently under the throes of a significant cold snap. This limitation 
exists until Congress has weighed in and passed a law specifying an 
effective date for the regulations to begin.
  Finally, as is just good government, the bill requires strengthened 
reporting requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency.
  One of the most frustrating parts of the EPA's new venture in 
regulating our existing energy infrastructure is that the EPA has 
actively blocked proper congressional oversight from receiving the 
science and calculations used in crafting these new costly regulations. 
That simply must end. If the Environmental Protection Agency is 
proposing new regulations because they believe they will truly make 
Americans healthier, let them share the data. Let them share the data 
with the United States Congress so it can be peer reviewed. Both the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have 
continually been ignored when requesting such data. That is 
unacceptable. That must end. This legislation is a step toward bringing 
accountability to an agency that for too long has run roughshod over 
our economy.
  The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4118, Suspending the 
Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act, addresses the 
disparity that President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have created 
between big businesses, which have been given a reprieve from having to 
comply with the mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and individual 
Americans, who have been given no such help by this President. Just 
this week, the press reported that the administration will delay yet 
another provision of the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurers to 
continue offering health plans that do not meet the Affordable Care 
Act's minimum coverage requirements. It is becoming so commonplace for 
this administration to waive or ignore provisions--by their own 
admission, this is their signature law, and they continue to waive 
provisions. The American people cannot seem to get an even break, and 
no one even seems to notice anymore. There is little doubt that this is 
exactly what the President is hoping for.
  In the last 8 months, the President has delayed or modified overly 22 
provisions in his signature health care law. We are all familiar--we 
have all seen the headlines: delays in the preexisting program; delays 
in the employer mandate; delays in the reporting requirement; changing 
the rules under which Congress has to buy insurance; delay, delay, 
delay, in his own law. The President has been quick to fix parts of the 
law that have political consequences for his allies and to protect his 
own talking points.
  Yet, where is the President's protection for the American people?
  Under the health care law, Americans who don't have health insurance 
and refuse to purchase a government-approved insurance policy will face 
an annual fine--an annual fine--that increases every year.
  However, purchasing a government-approved plan also means you have to 
pay big premiums. You are forced to navigate a dysfunctional Web site. 
You may lose the doctor you like and place your personal information in 
jeopardy on an unsecure Web site.
  Today, Republicans are offering a legislative solution to help 
Americans get out from under the crushing weight of the so-called 
Affordable Care Act. H.R. 4118, also known as the Simple Fairness Act, 
will give hardworking Americans the same relief that the President has 
already given to big businesses across the country.
  The administration has no problem delaying the employer mandate, not 
just once for 2014, but a second time for another full year for 
employers with 51-100 employees. Shouldn't that same relief be provided 
to rank-and-file Americans?
  The President has refused to work with Congress to change the law so 
today, we are moving ahead and doing what is right for the American 
people. The Simple Fairness Act will eliminate the penalty for 2014 for 
those individuals who chose not to purchase a government-approved 
health care plan.
  It is clear that H.R. 4118 offers the only feasible lifeline to 
millions of Americans who are faced with purchasing an expensive health 
care plan that does not meet their needs. It is Congress' job to 
protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so 
Washington can stop making decisions about American's health care and 
instead individuals can be free to decide for themselves. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying 
bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just not an ordinary day, this is a very 
important thing that is happening here, particularly for those of you 
who watch Congress a lot and want to know what it is we are about. This 
is a very special occasion here. As you can see by this poster on my 
right, we are celebrating a double golden anniversary. Today, the 
majority is holding the 50th vote to repeal or to otherwise undermine 
the Affordable Care Act under the 50th closed rule.
  Now, to people who don't understand what a closed rule is, that means 
this rule is coming to the floor to debate these bills, and it will not 
allow them to be amended. That is not exactly an open Congress in a 
great democracy.
  The majority has defied all expectations in reaching those milestones 
today, and as one often does when celebrating a colleague's 50th 
birthday or acknowledging a friend's 50th wedding anniversary, I want 
to take a moment to reflect on all that the majority has done to 
achieve this great honor.
  Indeed, many Americans, including myself, were doubtful we would ever 
see the majority hold their 50th vote to repeal a good health care law 
that is already benefiting more than 9 million Americans because, why 
would Congress want to take health care away from people?
  I remember back in 2012, when CBS News reported that the majority had 
spent 80 legislative hours--costing approximately $48 million--to hold 
33 votes to repeal the ACA. That is just the amount of money spent on 
floor time and committee time. They had held 33 votes at that time to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. Given the incredible waste of time and 
taxpayer money, I was hopeful that the 33rd vote might be the last. But 
the majority has persevered, and continued to ignore the Nation's 
pressing priorities to make it to today's 50th vote.
  Of course, getting this far wouldn't have been possible without the 
help of

[[Page 3754]]

a closed legislative process--a process that has allowed the majority 
to pursue a 50th vote without pause.
  Last year, the majority presided over the most closed session in 
history, and repeatedly passed closed rules that shut out the voices of 
the nearly 200 duly elected Members of Congress who sit on my side of 
the aisle. Now today, the majority is presenting their 50th closed rule 
in order to hold a 50th go-nowhere vote to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act.
  It is truly amazing that the majority has managed to hold the same 
vote 50 times while so many Americans and so much of the world cries 
out for help. As we know, there are global crises from Ukraine to 
Afghanistan. At home, there are millions still looking for work; 
millions more are working for a minimum wage upon which they cannot 
survive.
  In fact, just this week the number of Americans whose emergency 
unemployment insurance has expired will surpass 2 million individuals, 
including almost 200,000 veterans. We could have averted the crisis 
weeks ago, and we have tried numerous times to do that, but the 
majority has repeatedly said ``no.'' Indeed, some of our colleagues 
have said it would be immoral to help out those who have no money 
coming into their home.
  Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress released a report today 
that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce 
Federal spending on food stamps by $4.6 billion a year. Despite a 
similar estimate from the Congressional Budget Office declaring that 
raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, the 
majority refuses to join my Democratic colleagues and me to give 
America a raise.
  Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bills that deserve 
our consideration, but today's attempt to repeal a good health care law 
is not one of them. In fact, I have a list of 50 votes that we could be 
taking today instead of another vote to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act--everything from rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads to 
creating American manufacturing jobs.
  Of particular importance is a bill that I authored called the 
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act that will address 
the immediate crisis of antibiotic-resistant diseases and help to save 
lives. Despite the urgent need to protect public health, we have been 
unable to even get a hearing on this important legislation.
  The majority's refusal to take action on any of these pressing issues 
is truly an achievement, not one to be proud of. I hope I have made it 
clear that we cannot celebrate that achievement.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the milestone the majority is 
reaching today will be the end of the line for their tired political 
game. We have far too many issues that need our attention, and it is 
well past time that we got to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

     50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the 
                          Affordable Care Act

       1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform
       2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 
     2013 (H.R. 3546)
       3. Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010)
       4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 
     2013 (H.R. 1150)
       5. Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377)
       6. Make It in America Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 375)
       7. Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 
     1421)
       8. American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 (H.R. 
     2447)
       9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support 
     Sustainable Manufacturing (E3) Act (H.R. 2873)
       10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of 
     2013 or the ``MOVE Freight Act of 2013'' (H.R. 974)
       11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for 
     Exportation (ATTIRE) Act (H.R. 937)
       12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export 
     Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)
       13. Put America Back to Work Now Act (H.R. 535)
       14. Build America Bonds Act of 2013 (H.R. 789)
       15. The Customs Training Enhancement Act (H.R. 1322)
       16. American Export Promotion Act of 2013 (H.R. 1420)
       17. Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 1276)
       18. Global Free Internet Act of 2013 (H.R. 889)
       19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans 
     Solutions (NAT GAS) Act (H.R. 1364)
       20. Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013 (H.R. 949)
       21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE) 
     Act (H.R. 1440)
       22. Export Promotion Reform Act (H.R. 1409)
       23. Bridge to Jobs Act (H.R. 1419)
       24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act 
     (H.R. 3004)
       25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of 
     2013 (H.R. 905)
       26. The Bring Jobs Home Act of 2013 (H.R. 851)
       27. Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2013 (H.R. 929)
       28. Market Based Manufacturing Incentives Act of 2013 (H.R. 
     615)
       29. Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013 (H.R. 1027)
       30. American Jobs Matter Act (H.R. 1332)
       31. Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts (H.R. 1323)
       32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act 
     of 2013 (H.R. 1022)
       33. Resource Assessment of Rare Earths (RARE) Act of 2013 
     (H.R. 981)
       34. Congressional Made in America Promise Act (H.R. 194)
       35. Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act (H.R. 
     1424)
       36. SelectUSA Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1413)
       37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency 
     and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)
       38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act 
     (H.R. 1415)
       39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization 
     Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)
       40. Advanced Composites Development Act of 2013 (H.R. 2034)
       41. All-American Flag Act (H.R. 2355)
       42. GREEN Act of 2013 (H.R. 2863)
       43. Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 798)
       44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining 
     Investment Collaboration (AMERICA Works) Act (H.R. 497)
       45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional 
     Success (SECTORS) Act (H.R. 919)
       46. Job Skills for America's Students Act of 2013 (H.R. 
     1271)
       47. National Fab Lab Network Act (H.R. 1289)
       48. Workforce Development Tax Credit Act of 2013 (H.R. 
     1324)
       49. Job Opportunities Between our Shores (JOBS) Act (H.R. 
     1436)
       50. Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 (H.R. 1685)

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been 36 changes to the Affordable Care Act 
since it was signed into law. It has been a little over 3 years since 
the bill was signed into law. Thirty-six changes means one a month.
  How does the breakdown of those 36 changes occur? According to the 
Galen Institute published this morning, 15 times, Congress has passed 
and the President signed legislation changing the Affordable Care Act. 
Twice, the Supreme Court modified the Affordable Care Act, but 19 
times, President Obama made a change unilaterally.
  We are here today debating a delay on the penalties under the 
individual mandate, but it might interest the Congress to know that the 
President himself delayed the individual mandate. The administration 
changed the deadline for the individual mandate by declaring that 
customers who had purchased insurance by March 31 will avoid the tax 
penalty.
  Previously and by law, they were required to purchase that insurance 
by Valentine's Day, February 14, so there has already been a 6-week 
delay. We are simply trying to place in code what the President is 
doing unilaterally.
  You want to talk about a closed process where people don't have an 
opportunity to participate? That is governing by executive fiat. That 
is what we are trying to stop today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis) will control the time for the minority.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 3755]]

  Well, I want to come to the floor to wish the Republicans a happy 
anniversary. I brought a gold ring. This is the 50th repeal of 
ObamaCare. I want to wish my colleagues a happy 50th anniversary for 
the appeal of ObamaCare.
  Like any marriage that lasts 50 years, it takes a lot of work. The 
American people have shown that they want this marriage to last. They 
have shown that by reelecting Barack Obama as President. They have 
shown that by electing a Senate that won't even consider a repeal of 
the Affordable Care Act; but also like any marriage, it takes work 
along the way to improve it, to work at it, to make changes to it.
  Democrats stand ready to work with President Obama, to fine-tune this 
wonderful marriage celebrating the 50th anniversary of its repeal here 
today, to make sure it endures for another 50 repeal votes by the House 
Republicans here in the coming months. We are ready to make the changes 
that we need to, to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works for every 
American.
  There are issues in the implementation in my district. Two of my 
counties, Summit and Eagle County, have among the highest insurance 
rates in the exchange in the entire country, these two counties. That 
is due to a problem that the State had in implementing it, but we would 
love to work with Republicans on a Federal fix for Eagle and Summit 
County, and the other Colorado counties that are affected by it.
  I would be proud to work with my colleagues to replace the revenue 
and the medical and device tax with other sources of revenue to ensure 
that the Affordable Care Act works.
  There are a lot of great ideas, and perhaps it is time that, rather 
than continue to celebrate anniversaries of repeal, that we enter 
couples counseling sessions today, and we work together in trying to 
find common ground.
  Rather than talking about repealing ObamaCare and going back to a 
system we know wasn't working, in which 40 million Americans didn't 
have health care insurance, in which Americans and my constituents and 
yours were frustrated that, year after year, rates were going up 10, 
15, 20 percent--rather than going back to a formula we know didn't 
work, let's enter couples counseling and work together to make health 
care work in our country, to talk about a path forward, with the 
President, with Democrats, with Republicans, with Independents, to 
ensure that these cost increases that have been epidemic the last 
couple of decades come to an end, that we can extend coverage to more 
American families, that we can ensure that the quality of health care 
that is our Nation's pride can continue to be available to Americans, 
regardless of their economic background.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize there have 
been changes by administrative action, some 19 that President Obama has 
done all on his own, without any influence from Congress.
  Now, if the gentleman were truly interested about an offset for 
repealing the medical device tax, perhaps he might look more favorably 
on the bill before us today, H.R. 4118. The Congressional Budget Office 
scores a significant savings by passing H.R. 4118.
  Perhaps there are some other things that could be done with that 
money as well; but nevertheless, the President has, on his own, delayed 
employee reporting, delayed subsidies through the Federal exchange. He 
closed the high-risk pool.
  He has doubled the allowable deductibles. He has required self-
attestation and eliminated the reporting requirements under the law 
that he signed in March of 2010.
  He last fall said: Okay. I give up. Insurance can offer plans that we 
just told you were illegal, that they were crummy insurance, and now, 
we are going to allow them to be offered again.
  All of these were actions taken by the executive under a closed 
process. With no input or oversight by the people's House--by the 
United States House of Representatives.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Isn't that wonderful? Isn't this great that the President has made 19 
changes to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it work?
  You know what? That is what a marriage takes. That is what has helped 
the Affordable Care Act withstand the 50th vote to repeal it here in 
the House. Had the President been inflexible--just like in a marriage, 
if one partner is inflexible, it would have been a lot harder to 
survive 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Here, we are 
celebrating the golden anniversary of repeal votes, 50 votes.
  But thanks to the President's flexibility with 19 changes, hopefully, 
there are more along the way to ensure that all Americans have access 
to affordable health care:
  That no American faces pricing discrimination or is kept out of a 
plan because of a preexisting condition;
  That people can move between employers;
  That somebody can leave a large company to be an entrepreneur and 
have a startup without worrying about losing their health care if they 
have a preexisting condition;
  Making sure that young Americans, as they are trying to find a job or 
working part time, can stay on their parents' plan;
  Making sure that Americans have a real choice in the exchanges that 
choose between multiple providers.
  These were some of the elements that I think the American people want 
to keep and one of the reasons that this health care act has not only 
withstood 50 votes to repeal and is celebrating its golden anniversary, 
but will survive the next 50 votes if the House Republicans choose to 
have them to try to appeal the Affordable Care Act.
  The American people want to see changes to make it work. We applaud 
the President for the 19 changes he made. We encourage him to use the 
discretion that we rightly give him under the Affordable Care Act to 
help make it work.
  We encourage the discretion at the State level that many Governors, 
like the Governor of Kentucky and others, have shown to make the 
Affordable Care Act work in their State.
  We applaud the fact that there are over $200 billion of deficit 
reduction in the Affordable Care Act. If we can find additional savings 
and replace lost revenue, we are certainly open to that discussion. So 
I rise in celebration of having withstood 50 repeal votes. We are ready 
for the next 50.
  We use these opportunities to highlight the American people on the 
benefits of the Affordable Care Act and to say that we are ready to 
have a real discussion with Republicans, to exert our legislative 
privilege, to make changes, and in the absence of that, we applaud the 
President in using the abilities that we give him under the act to help 
make sure the Affordable Care Act truly makes health care more 
affordable for American families.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here is the Affordable Care Act. The 
President says it is the law of the land. How does it describe the 
effective date for the individual mandate? Under section 1501, 
subparagraph D, effective date:

       The amendments made by this section shall apply to the 
     taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

  Pretty unambiguous, pretty easy to understand. It doesn't seem to 
have a lot of flexibility or wiggle room written into it.
  How does the language read that describes the effective date for the 
employer mandate? Well, that reads under section 1513, subparagraph D, 
effective date:

       The amendments made by this section shall apply to the 
     months beginning after December 31, 2013.

  It doesn't sound as if there is a lot of flexibility; yet the 
President, on his own, found the flexibility only within the executive 
branch to say that effective date is no longer valid.
  We are simply saying for Mr. and Mrs. American--for the average 
American, we should be able to delay the effective date of the penalty 
because this law has been a disaster from start to finish. Stories 
about the Web site are now legion.

[[Page 3756]]

  We should give the same relief to the average American that the 
President gave to his friends in Big Business.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill--this 50th anniversary--golden anniversary of ObamaCare 
repeals here in the House--50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
gutting mental parity, health parity, gutting protection for Americans 
with preexisting conditions, went through no hearings, no markups, no 
amendments that we are allowed to discuss or debate or vote on here on 
the floor of the House. This is not the process for improving the 
quality of health care for American families.
  The American people have made it clear they want this marriage to 
last. They want to make it work. They know it requires hard work. The 
President has made 19 wonderful changes to the law.
  I am not a constitutional lawyer. If there are folks on the other 
side who want to sue the President, who think that he did something 
contrary to the law we passed, they are certainly welcome to sue. I 
believe that the President was given broad discretion under the law to 
make it work.
  I hope that this legislative body takes up the gauntlet and makes the 
changes we need to make the Affordable Care Act work. Any marriage 
takes effort. Here, we have a marriage between the Affordable Care Act 
and the American people, and 50 votes to repeal it are not going to 
break up that marriage.
  It is a stronger marriage than that because the American people have 
voted on it. They didn't elect a Presidential candidate who wanted to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. They didn't elect a Senate that wanted 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  So here we are, and we are welcome to have another 50, 100, 200 votes 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act; or we can get to work on an open 
process, letting Members of both parties offer floor amendments. This 
rule allows no floor amendments.
  Having a markup in committee, having hearings in committee about how 
we can deliver better health care value to the American people will 
make sure affordable care is available to every American family and 
affordable for small businesses, to make America more competitive.
  But instead of going through an open process, encouraging ideas from 
Republicans and Democrats to make health care work in our country, we 
are presented with the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  In the absence of meaningful improvements and legislation, the 
President is using the authority that we gave him under this bill to 
make the changes that he needs to make, to make sure the Affordable 
Care Act works.
  This body can reassert itself and take back its prerogative whenever 
we want by passing commonsense bipartisan bills to improve the 
Affordable Care Act, but it truly is hypocritical to criticize the 
President out of one side of one's mouth for making changes that 
actually improve the law and make it work better, when here in this 
body we are refusing to make some of those same commonsense changes.
  I hope that if people think that there was authority of the law that 
exceeded, they are welcome to work that out in the courts. That is what 
the court is for, to settle the differences of separation of powers 
between the executive and legislative branches; but I hope, more 
important, because the American people care about affordable health 
care, that this body is willing to take up some of those improvements 
that we can make, to make sure that this marriage can endure for the 
next 50 votes as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  It sounds as if the gentleman is going to vote for the bill under 
consideration today because, after all, it is an opportunity to give 
long-suffering Americans an opportunity to be out of the penalty part 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  Let's be honest, I mean this thing is one of the most coercive pieces 
of legislation that has ever been passed by the United States Congress. 
I might just remind people here in the House of Representatives that 
this law, which was H.R. 3590, was actually not subject to any hearings 
or any markups in the United States House of Representatives. Maybe it 
was when H.R. 3590 first passed the House when it was a housing bill in 
July of 2009.
  But remember, what became the health care bill was a housing bill 
that was amended. The amendment read over in the Senate: ``strike all 
after the enacting clause and insert.''
  And what was inserted was language written by special interests over 
in the Cloakroom of the Senate Finance Committee, was passed by the 
Senate on Christmas Eve, and then thrown back over here to the House.

                              {time}  1300

  Since the House had passed H.R. 3590 as a housing bill, not as a tax 
bill like the Affordable Care Act was but as a housing bill, the 
question before the House then became: Will the House now concur in the 
amendments to H.R. 3590? It took 3 months for the Speaker to cobble 
together the 217 votes that she needed to pass this thing, but H.R. 
3590 was never heard as a health care bill in my committee, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was never heard in the Ways and 
Means Committee. It was never heard in the Education and Labor 
Committee. That was H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 is long gone--no one has seen 
it for years--but H.R. 3590 is what is embodied in the President's 
health care law.
  So, really, to say that everyone had a chance to participate in this 
and to debate it, that is, in fact, hypocritical. What is really 
hypocritical is that H.R. 3590, when it came back to the House, was 
presented to this House under a closed rule. That is a fact, and that 
is a fact that should be recognized by the minority. This bill was the 
product of a closed rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it. The individual mandate is a 
linchpin of RomneyCare--or whatever you would like to call it--modeled 
on, in fact, the insurance reforms in Massachusetts. This component is 
critical to ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are not 
discriminated against in pricing in the exchange. It is important to 
make sure that we have a younger, healthier risk pool in the exchange 
to bring down rates for all Americans.
  If this bill were to become law, which it won't--it is simply the 
50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the golden anniversary of 
repeals--the entire affordable care structure, including the pricing in 
the exchange, would go up for American families, and it would devastate 
health care reform. This is not a bill that has support from the 
President. It is not a bill that has support from the proponents of the 
Affordable Care Act. It doesn't make the Affordable Care Act better. It 
is, in fact, the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  I was on the Education and Labor Committee, as it was called at the 
time, two Congresses ago. My colleague from Texas talked about the 
process under which the health care bill was written. We did have a 
substantial markup. There were other committees: the Ways and Means 
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. My committee was one 
of the committees that it was reported out of, and there were other 
committees it was not reported out of.
  This was an amazing process of writing this bill over the period of a 
year. In fact, in our Democratic Caucus meetings, we even, essentially, 
functioned as a committee of our entire Caucus, where we went through 
the bill page after page, and we made suggestions. There were a number 
of bills that were written by Republicans that were included in the 
Affordable Care Act, and there were amendments that I was involved with 
that were included. Like in any legislative process, some that I 
advocated for were not included in the final bill.
  Unlike this bill, which had no hearing and no markup in any form--
because the gentleman from Texas is

[[Page 3757]]

right. This bill number came from the Senate, and that is the normal 
process around here. We sometimes have bills from the Senate we 
approve, and sometimes they originate here and go over there. So this 
bill number and this title came from something else, and they approved 
it in reconciliation.
  Yet the Affordable Care Act--the bill that led to it--went through my 
committee. I remember being up until, really, I think, 7 o'clock in the 
morning. We went straight through the night, under Chairman Miller, 
offering a number of amendments, some passing and some not. Sometimes I 
was on the prevailing side, sometimes not. We had a lively discussion 
over amendments from Democrats and Republicans, some of which made it 
into the final bill and some of which didn't. That is the legislative 
process.
  To somehow compare that to the legislative process around this bill 
is like night and day. So, although the gentleman from Texas is 
technically correct--the bill number was a reconciliation from the 
Senate that the House concurred in and sent back with some changes--the 
work that went into forming that bill had countless hearings and had 
several markups, including one that I participated in and offered 
amendments in and voted for and against amendments from both sides of 
the aisle in.
  We are where we are. We would love to see the Affordable Care Act go 
through a process now. Again, why not allow amendments under this rule? 
Why not allow Republicans or Democrats, who have ideas to make health 
care more affordable, to offer them now to the floor? If they would 
pass, then they would move on to the Senate.
  Instead, we have a narrowly focused Affordable Care Act repeal that 
makes health care less affordable for American families by leading to a 
risk pool in the exchanges that is less healthy and older. We need to 
ensure that young people are part of the exchanges. Young people want 
to have insurance, and they want to have affordable insurance. Let's 
make sure they have a way to do that in the exchanges. This bill would 
repeal that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on my side, I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. To the gentleman from Texas, I say it is possible I will 
have one more speaker. If I see her arrive, I will yield to her. 
Otherwise, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, the number of people who lost their 
unemployment benefits as a result of Congress' failing to extend the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation program has climbed to 2 million 
Americans. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore 
unemployment insurance and provide much-needed relief to countless 
families across the country as well as to stimulate our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying 
bills.
  We could be doing a lot of important work here in the House rather 
than to have, I think, what both sides would agree is a purely symbolic 
50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, unless there are, perhaps, 
some who think ``50'' is the magic number. I think anybody who has a 
degree of political sense realizes, if the other 49 didn't go anywhere, 
this one is very unlikely to go anywhere. Rather than proceed with 
something that isn't going anywhere and that gives the Democrats once 
again the opportunity to talk about how important it is to make health 
care more affordable--and the American people overwhelmingly want 
health care to be fixed, not repealed--we could be doing a lot of 
important things that the American people actually want this body to 
do.
  Let's talk about immigration reform.
  There is a bill that passed the Senate with Democrats and 
Republicans--68 votes. It is rare for more than two-thirds of the 
United States Senate to come together around a commonsense solution. 
How did they do that? They did that because the American people want 
this problem solved. They are sick and tired--and they should be; I am, 
too--of having over 10 million people illegally in this country. In my 
district, there are tens of thousands of people who are there 
illegally. We don't even know because there is no way to even count. 
President Obama has deported over 2 million people at an enormous cost 
to taxpayers--$10,000 to $20,000 per deportation. That is how much it 
costs taxpayers--you and me, Mr. Speaker.
  Guess what? There is a bipartisan solution supported by the law 
enforcement community, supported by the business community, supported 
by the technology industry, supported by both the agriculture 
industry--farmers and farmworkers--and supported by business and labor, 
supported by the faith-based community, supported by over 75 percent of 
Americans across the political spectrum, supported by a majority of 
Republicans and a majority of Democrats and a majority of Independents. 
That bill is ready.
  There is a bipartisan House version, H.R. 15. Let's bring that 
forward under a rule. That bill would have the votes to pass tomorrow 
if we brought it forward. We could send it to the President. We could 
reduce the deficit by over $100 billion, increase our GDP, create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens, as the bill has 
been scored. Finally, we could secure our borders so we could have 
control over who comes and goes, both people and illicit products. That 
is what the American people want. Let's get that bill through rather 
than celebrate yet another empty anniversary for the repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  I strongly suggest that my colleagues start bringing forward bills 
that the American people want to see pass. If we can bring forward 
immigration reform with bipartisan support and get it out of this body 
and to the President's desk, the American people will start to improve 
their opinions of this institution. When I see the polls and they say, 
oh, 15 percent approval is what Congress has--or 12 percent--it is 
really no wonder because it is a little bit like a broken record around 
here. They are, frankly, sick and tired of our every week, it seems 
like, repealing the Affordable Care Act and making health care more 
expensive for the American people. They don't want to see us talking 
about golden rings and 50th anniversaries of votes. They want to see us 
solving problems.
  We offer the Speaker and the majority leader the opportunity to do 
that. We welcome the Republican immigration principles. There are ample 
grounds to work on a bipartisan solution based on H.R. 15 or on another 
bill that encapsulates those principles that the Republicans laid down 
on which we can find common ground so as to solve a very real problem, 
to grow our economy, to reduce our deficit, to secure our borders, and 
to ensure that America remains competitive in the global economy. I 
challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach a solution 
on that issue and to really move forward with regard to making health 
care more affordable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed process--this 
closed rule--that allows no Republican ideas and no Democratic ideas to 
come forward, to enter this discussion. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question so the Democrats can bring forward the 
unemployment insurance bill, and I also encourage my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Talk about doing the will of the people. There was an election in 
Texas yesterday. There was a question on the ballot--to support or 
oppose the President's takeover of the health care industry in this 
country. Ninety-two percent of the people were recorded as

[[Page 3758]]

being in opposition to the President's takeover of health care. So, in 
fact, in the district I represent, that is a significant amount.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills to provide 
relief for hardworking Americans who are faced with the 
administration's expensive and restrictive mandates both in the health 
insurance and energy sectors.
  I want to thank my colleagues Lynn Jenkins from Kansas, the 
Republican Conference vice chair, as well as the chairman of the Energy 
and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Mr. Whitfield from 
Kentucky, for their thoughtful pieces of legislation.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 497 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3546) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment 
     benefits, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3546.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 497, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 938.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 184, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--184

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)

[[Page 3759]]


     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Chaffetz
     Courtney
     Crawford
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Duffy
     Esty
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     Messer
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Schneider
     Shea-Porter
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Wagner

                              {time}  1337

  Mr. NADLER, Mrs. BEATTY, and Mr. GARCIA changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WEBER of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 93 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the 
Previous Question, rollcall vote 93, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 182, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 94]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--182

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Chaffetz
     Courtney
     Crawford
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Duffy
     Esty
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Schneider

                              {time}  1344

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote Agreeing to 
the Resolution, rollcall vote 94, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________